1

HR Design DRAFT RecommendationsBenefits Work Team

AppendicesReleased for Review: 9 April 2012

Appendix 1. Decision-Making Process

Consensus Building Processa participatory process, includes multiple perspectives/voices in the decision

• could result in unanimity (100% agreement)• could result in simple majority (6 of us agree)• prefer to reach a super majority (8 or more of us agree)

Respectful majoritycommitment to record pros & cons of each position, degree of agreement

Preliminary Polls

1. Thumbs up/sideways/down (e.g., decide to continue discussion, “vote to vote”)

2. Sticky dots (preliminary, record position that may change given further discussion or new data:benchmarking, trends, information from campus)

3. Flashcard poll

green = go, yes

yellow = caution, reservations

red = pause, major reservations

11 green = unanimity(record vote & move on)

8 green + 3 yellow = respectful majority(identify & record reservations)

1 or more red cards(identify & record reservations, further discussion)

Process before taking a preliminary poll on a recommendation:

• discuss emerging idea(s)• identify decision points.• written proposal/choices• list pros & cons

Appendix 2. Paid Time Off (PTO) Model for Leave

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison move to a “paid time off” model for leave – combiningpersonal holidays, vacation, and sick leave into a single allocation?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• ASLCC & SHICC rely on accumulating sick leave• ICI premiums for classified staff currently based on accumulated sick leave hours

2

Appendix 3. Cafeteria of Benefits Model

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison adopt a “cafeteria of benefits” approach?(Continue discussion in April)

Discussion:

• gives employees $ value or points to select desired benefits• IRS – tax rules complex• university currently makes an employer contribution for State Group Health insurance, WRS

Retirement, Income Continuation Insurance (ICI); some life insurance; paid leave• no “opt out”for retirement; WRS requires high participation for health of system

Concerns:

• system advantages married/partnered employees; single employees have less flexibility/choice• employees with low income would not be able to afford additional benefits (in either system)• approach makes it easier for the state to chip away at benefits (each costs increase each year,

points would decrease in value or employees would receive fewer points)

Questions:

• Is this a feasible approach at UW-Madison?• Benchmarking: Do any of our institutional peers offer a “cafeteria of benefits” plan?

Source:

IRS Publication 15-B (2012). Employer’s Guide to Fringe Benefitswww.irs.gov/publications/p15b/

Appendix 4. Holidays

Decision Points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison continue to provide existing 9 paid legal holidays?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison provide the Friday following Thanksgiving as anadditional holiday?(Vote: Yes – 9G, 1Y)

Reservations:

• prefer flexibility for employees to take vacation when they want/need personal or family time –possible to use vacation for the day after Thanksgiving

• may affect increase comp time

3

Friday following Thanksgiving holiday

Pros Cons

• many employees already take vacation on this date• for essential employees (24/7 units), could offer an

opportunity to guarantee one day of leave• furloughs in two previous years demonstrate that

this is a popular and useful time to offer a holiday(instead of shutting down mid-week, re-openingfor one day)

• cost savings (light, heat)

• coverage & overtime issues• HRS – consistency with UW System• people complain that they need to get things done

by the end of the year

3. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer President’s Day as an additional holiday?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• closing the university for an additional day would affect academic calendar, exam scheduling• falls very close to Martin Luther King, Jr. Day• possible for employees to take a vacation day on this federal holiday

4. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison close between Christmas Eve and New Year’s Day?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• Christian holidays are already privileged by our current holiday system• prefer to allocate vacation that employees can use when they need/want to take leave• payroll week

5. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison allow employees to substitute other religious holidaysfor paid legal holidays?(Vote: No – unanimous)

Discussion:

• closure of state agencies by statute• management issue associated with substituting other religious holidays

Question:

• How can we honor holidays in religious traditions other than Christianity?[Recommend language supporting diversity of religious observances]

Source:

Unclassified Personnel Policies & Procedures 16.05. Religious Observances.www.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1605.html

Unclassified employees represent many different religions, and the University seeks to be sensitive to individual needsby balancing work requirements and the private free exercise of religious beliefs.

If an employee would like time off for a religious observance, he/she should ask the supervisor or departmentchairperson. Approval must be granted unless the absence will create a hardship for the unit. The employee must usevacation, floating holiday, or personal holiday hours, or make other arrangements with his/her supervisor.

An employee’s claim of a religious conflict should be accepted at face value. A great variety of valid claims exist forreligious groups, and there is no practical, dignified, and legal means to access the validity of individual claims.

4

Appendix 5: Personal Holidays

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison combine personal holidays with vacation?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Combine personal holidays with vacation

Pros Cons

• less confusing for employees• reduces risk that employee will lose leave (now, if

employee selects but does not have personalholiday, HRS converts to unpaid time)

• not a significant change in how personal holiday isused (now, most employees use personal holidaysup right away to avoid losing them)

• easier to administer leave “in one bucket”

• more meaningful for classified employees(currently the only option employees can use rightup front)

• one type of vacation people have to really use(“use it or lose it” – can’t carry)

Emerging Idea:

• Like our recommended hybrid model for sick leave, we could allocate vacation with a portion(36-40 hours) available to employees during the probationary/evaluation period (not more thancould be earned during this initial period).

Questions:

• Can personal holidays be combined with vacation? Reduced or expanded? [Yes]• In 20 years, will anyone remember why we have personal holiday hours?

Appendix 6: Vacation

Decision Points:

1. Should all University of Wisconsin-Madison employees earn vacation?(We are continuing to discuss issues related to vacation for several employee groups.)

Discussion:

• C-Basis faculty & academic staff– many universities don’t give vacation to 9-month academic employees

(When would faculty and instructional academic staff take vacation?; lots of flexibility inwinter break, spring break; much of each break dedicated to grading, teaching preparation)

– compensation reflects vacation status– most faculty have 9-month appointments

(CALS transitioning 12-month to 9-month; SMPH 12-month)– K-12 model? (personal days, don’t accrue)– TA/PA contract model? (22 days/year – sick & vacation bank, tracked at dept. level)– RA variable (pro-rated by appointment length)– may be political pushback if vacation recommended– colleague coverage (sick leave) disallowed

• Project, LTE, GA (Research Assistants), Student Hourly employees

• GA (Teaching Assistant and Project Assistant) and Trades employees

5

Source:

UW System Financial Administration. Salary and Fringe Benefits Calculations for Unclassified Staff(F29) Revised 1 December 2004www.wisconsin.edu/fadmin/fppp/fppp29.htm

Note: Decision points 2 through 28 refer to University of Wisconsin-Madison WRS-eligibleclassified exempt, classified non-exempt, and unclassified A-basis (12-month) employees.

2. Should all employees receive the same amount of vacation?

(Vote 1: split vote – Yes, 2G, 1Y; No, 5G, 2Y; 1 abstention)

(Vote 2: yes – 8G, 2Y)

Reservations:

• recognize that exempt employees expect to work more than 40 hours but are not eligible forovertime, comp time (extra 2 days/year)

• want to hear more from the campus community about leave

(Vote 3: yes – 8G, 2Y)

Reservations:

• we offer a lot of vacation in comparison to other employers, usually ~96 hrs for new employees• significant difference in initial allocation for unclassified staff

Discussion:

• linked to how leave is reported, when people are eligible to use leave, how/when leave is banked(what you have, how you can use it, and how you can avoid losing it)

• acknowledge exempt vs. non-exempt job structure, exempt cannot accrue comp time (need morevacation or more flexibility) vs. non-exempt can earn overtime/comp time (variable, dependswhere you work)

• positives of overtime/comp time offset by mandatory overtime.• perceptions: typically not a large amount (special event, snow removal); most Housing

employees take overtime pay when choice is presented; many employees take comp time inacademic units

• recruitment: may be less competitive if < 176 hours offered to faculty and academic staff• concerned about reducing initial allocation for academic staff; a positive is that new employees

will reach 176 with “bumps” and then earn more• NY = multiple transitions (6-tier retirement plan)• coming to the middle is difficult – there are significant differences across employee categories• globally, HR Design is to evaluate and change – less “pigeon-holing”

6

Same amount of vacation

Pros Cons

• consistency, equity (equal footing, equal basis,break down class/caste boundaries)

• everyone needs balance & wellness• entitlement (everyone is entitled to at least ‘x’

vacation)• easier to administer (efficiency)• easier to understand (employee and person

explaining)• easier to schedule?

• if lots of leave, maybe harder to schedule• does not recognize different expectations of

exempt & non-exempt employees, acknowledgetime worked (currently exempt: + 2 days,non-exempt: earn comp time, overtime)

• for longer term workers, if no accrual then noreward

• potentially more expensive

Benchmarking

Same amount Different amount

Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska [exempt reporthalf & whole day increments], Northwestern, Penn(Ivy), Drexel

Illinois, Ohio, Penn State, Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue

Emerging Ideas:

• Offer all employees the same amount of vacation with recommendations for other form(s) ofacknowledgment

• Offer different amounts of vacation based on exempt vs. non-exempt status

Questions:

• Do departments allow employees to earn overtime, accumulate comp time?• Would hourly reporting erode the distinction between hourly and salaried employees? Would

salaried employees lose FLSA exempt status? [No]• Is there a way to imagine this conversation as not about compensation? Or is that we

need/want leave to be construed as compensation?• What would be most equitable? What would have the greatest impact to improve campus

climate?

– same amount of vacation, different eligibility to start using vacation?– same amount of vacation, different reporting requirements?– different amount of vacation, same eligibility to start using?– different amount of vacation, same (hourly?) reporting requirements?

• How would vacation work for C-Basis (9-month) unclassified employees?• How would “grandfathering” work? [please see: Vacation, decision point 8]

Data Requests:

• How many hours of overtime have been paid in the past year?• How much comp time has been earned in the past year?• How many employees earn the maximum allowable vacation hours now (216 hours)? How

many would be affected if we recommend change?

3. Should leave be allocated on the same date for all employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

4. Should leave be allocated on a calendar year or fiscal year basis?(Vote: Fiscal Year (x8) vs. Calendar Year (x2))

7

Calendar Year

Pros Cons

• W4 & payroll based on calendar year• How other businesses operate (Question: How

does that affect UW-Madison businessoperations?)

• State schedule is calendar year

• floating holiday difficult to use in December(especially for employees in 24/7 units)

• change management - transition for employees whoare used to working on a calendar year basis

• unclassified retirement reporting to WRS changes

Fiscal Year

Pros Cons

• Easier to use floating holidays by end of FY• Aligns with budget cycle, allocation of state funds• Less likely to exhaust vacation before the winter

holidays, gain new holiday in summer months• Transition: fewer employees to “move” since all

unclassified employees receive leave on a FY basis(fewer HRS hours)

• FY transition to new HR system: “use or lose” maybe a problem

• change management - transition for employees whoare used to working on a FY basis

Discussion:

• current unclassified employees would not be affected• current classified employees would receive 1/2-year allocation in January + annual July allocation

5. What total amount of leave would be fair?

Proposed Leave Structure

Years ofService

1-3 yearsincrease follows3 anniversaryrd

4-6 yearsincrease follows6 anniversaryth

7-9 yearsincrease follows9 anniversaryth

10-12 yearsincrease follows 12 anniversaryth

13-15 yearsincrease follows15 anniversaryth

> 15 years

Holidays 80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

80 hours(10 days)

Vacation* 160 hours(20 days)

176 hours(22 days)

192 hours(24 days)

208 hours(26 days)

224 hours(28 days)

240 hours(30 days)

Sick Leave 120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

120 hours(15 days)

Total Hours 360 hours 376 hours 392 hours 408 hours 424 hours 440 hours

Total Days 45 days 47 days 49 days 51 days 53 days 55 days

*Note: All vacation allocations include 36 hours formerly allocated as personal holiday

Note: All vacation allocations include 36 hours formerly allocated as personal holidayNote: All allocations prorated for part-time employment

6. What minimum (entry level) allocation of leave would be fair?

Range 144-252 hours?(Vote 1: No – does not reflect majority, most votes for 156-240 hours)

(Vote 2: 144 hours (x3); 156 hours (x6); 212 hours (x1))

8

(Vote 3: 160 hours (20 days)/year): Yes – 9G, 1Y)

Reservation:

• significant change for entering unclassified employees

Discussion:

• we want solutions that mitigate against: gaming the system, supervisor actions that preventemployees from using accrued leave, institutional losses when employees leave after using initialallotments/more than they have earned

Initial allocations discussed:

Range – first discussion: 120 hours (15 days) to 200 hours (25 days)

144 hours (18 days)

• impact on units with many non-exempt employees• could bump “earlier & more often” – reflect significant increase in contributions ~2 yrs• when you start a new job it’s difficult to get away (keep growing)• prefer whole days. Why start a new program with half a day?

156 hours (19.5 days) or 160 hours (20 days)

• meet in the middle? = 156 a better minimum• prefer number divisible by 8• incoming employees may expect escalation; recruiting tool – could bring in at a higher level• 20 days = 2.5 days more than lowest current allocation, for new, non-exempt classified employees

176 hours (22 days)• avoid decreasing vacation significantly for one group of employees• 18 days might hurt our competitiveness• people see sick leave differently from vacation (although sick leave is part of the total

compensation package)

Questions:

• Do we have enough leave? Too much? Too little?• Would morale go down with a large initial allotment but little or no progression?

(“earning” vs. “entitlement”)• How do life-cycle needs tie in with recruitment? retention? institutional costs? operational needs

(e.g., assure coverage)? turnover costs?

Data:

University of Wisconsin-Madison HR Design Project: Vacation & Sick Leave BenchmarkingHuron Consulting Group (Draft – 27 February 2012)

7. What maximum allocation of leave would be fair?(Vote: 240 hours (x7); 324 hours (x3))

Maximum allocations discussed:

240 hours• 10 additional days of vacation (2 weeks)

9

252 hours:• vacation a proxy for compensation• avoid further benefits cuts• anticipate complaints when draft recommendations go out for comment

8. Should we “grandfather” employees who currently earn more than 240 hours (30 days)/year?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Note: Ongoing employees should receive vacation commensurate with time in position.No employee will lose vacation. Some will be eligible for additional vacation.

(Employees would enter the system at their current allocation level and remain at that leveluntil eligible for the next “bump.” Employees earning at an allocation above the new maximumwould remain at 216 hours + 36 hours (31.5 days)/year until separation/retirement.)

Discussion:

• ~500 employees currently earning 216 hours/year• higher initial allocation and earlier “bumps” would mitigate loss of hours at end of career• generous benefits may give us a significant edge in recruitment

9. Should experienced employees enter above minimum allocation?(Vote: Yes, WRS-State of Wisconsin service only – 8G, 1Y)

Reservation:

• lack of parity for experienced employees who enter from non-WRS State of Wisconsin positions

Discussion:

• enter at level commensurate with years of state service, remain at that level until eligible for next “bump”• vacation as a recruitment tool

– model: City of Madison (come in with 3 weeks, approval of up to 4 weeks)– leave very generous to begin with, in positions competing with private sector, we have a

competitive edge already– who decides? how would we keep track?– goal is to eliminate class distinctions; achieve consistent HR practice across campus: this

would undermine our efforts to create a consistent leave system (high potential for abuse,different practice in different parts of campus)

Experience reflected in initial vacation allotment:

Pros Cons

• WRS State of Wisconsin employees havereinstatement rights, should be able to re-enter atsame seniority date (continuous service) oradjusted seniority date (short gap in service , 3-5years, depending on employment category)

• corresponds with the way in which employeescurrently move among state agencies

• More broadly (beyond WRS State service),provides flexibility in recruitment

• use compensation, not vacation for recruitment• goal is to eliminate disparities and class

distinctions, we want a system that is even & fair• wouldn’t reflect the private sector (our leave is

very generous to begin with)• don’t encourage high level searches to negotiate

“CEO status” – we need to combat growth of a“superstar” mentality in academe

• new job (don’t expect enhanced benefits), don’tprivilege municipalities

10

Questions:

• Would other WRS service (City of Madison, MMSD, other municipalities) be recognized?• Would federal service be recognized?• Would years of experience in higher education be recognized (unclassified staff)?• Would it be possible to use vacation as a recruitment tool – supervisor brings employee in at

a higher level?

HR Design Project connection:

• Check in & coordinate with Recruitment & Assessment team

10. Should vacation allocations increase based on years of service?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

11. How often should an employee’s vacation allocation increase, and by how much?

Preliminary poll 1:1 increase at 2 years (following 2 anniversary), then every 3 years (2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17)st nd

1 increase at 3 years (following 3 anniversary), then every 3 years (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18)st rd

(Vote: split – 1 increase at year 2 (x 4); 1 increase at year 3 (x6))st st

Preliminary poll 2:Increases (2 days) at 3 , 6 , 9 , 12 , & 15 anniversary (beginning of year 4, 7, 10, 13, 16);rd th th th th

Reach maximum allocation after 15 years of service(Vote: Yes – 8G + 2Y)

Discussion:

Benchmarking: Maximum allocation reached at...

0 yrs – UW-Madison unclassified employees (receive 176 hours of vacation throughout career)6 yrs – Penn10 yrs – Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Vanderbuilt, Drexel15 yrs – Illinois, Nebraska20 yrs – UW-Madison classified exempt employees; Northwestern21 yrs – University of Chicago24 yrs – Ohio State25 yrs – UW-Madison classified non-exempt employees; Iowa26 yrs – Penn State30 yrs – Indiana31 yrs – Minnesota

1-year “Bumps”

Pros Cons

• employee earns sooner• good for all• reward in absence of raises• retention incentive

• vacation – fractions every year• cost more to pay out at early separation• gain on anniversary, so only get a fraction• with 10 days between min & max, reach maximum

vacation allocation at 10 years

11

2-year “Bumps”

Pros Cons

• 2 years: reflects learning curve, “glow” maydiminish;(Purdue, Nebraska)

• all prorated all the time• creates an administrative & financial burden for the

university• cost more to pay out at early separation• with 10 days between minimum & maximum

allocations, small rise at each “bump” if employeesreach maximum allocation at 15-18 years -OR-employees reach maximum allocation at 10 years if2 days are allocated at each “bump”

3-year “Bumps”

Pros Cons

• in advance of traditional 5 years• peers average 3-5 years• fewer fractions, larger “bumps” (reach maximum

vacation allocation at 15 years if 2 days areallocated at each “bump”)

• costs of early separation are falling at this level

• unclassified employees wait longer to reach 176hours

“Bumps” relatively late? (Indiana 6, Ohio State 7, Penn State 10) [we do not favor this approach]

12. When should employees be eligible to use vacation? “Day One,” with supervisor’s approval?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Note: An employee who separates from the university and who has used more vacation thanearned will be required to reimburse the university for excess leave used.(Current policy continues.)

Discussion:

• parallel to our recommended hybrid model for sick leave, we could allocate vacation with aportion (36-40 hours) available to employees during the probationary/evaluation period (notmore than could be earned during the initial period designated)– difficult to administer– if 3-month period selected, prefer hybrid

• university needs to address structural issues (hiring delays, work backlogs) rather than place theburden on incoming employees

12

Day 1

Pros Cons

• option value/flexibility• enables employee to meet personal, family needs• supervisor’s discretion/responsibility to approve or

deny requests• consistency/equity (if standardized across

employee categories)• reduces unpaid leave• less unused vacation at end-of-year• identify leave abuse early• recruitment plus• flexibility for families with small children• lost PH bank• mitigates – smaller initial allocation for

unclassified employees• except for pre-planned trips and emergencies, most

employees will wait to use large amounts ofvacation when starting a new job

• “approval of supervisor” (supervisor acceptsresponsibility, risk by approving leave)

• standard language exists (if more leave is used thanearned, the difference must be repaid uponresignation/separation)

• employee – interrupts learning curve• employer – difficult to reduce work backlog, less

time to evaluate• significant change, administrative challenge for

service units

3 months

Pros Cons

• allows period of time for evaluation & training• employee has access to other paid leave (36 hours

personal vacation, sick leave)• less vacation carry-over than 6 months

• for experienced employees new to UW-Madison, 6months is a long time to wait

• recruitment challenge: if experienced workerswould lose benefits, people we want/need may notapply

6 months

Pros Cons

• generous period of time for evaluation• for current classified employees, leave is tied to

probationary period

• “There are no pros – 6 months is tough.” (Hard toflex for family, illness)

Question:

• What is the turn-over rate for service units (# or % new employees/year)?

13. How should employees report use of vacation?

A. Should FLSA non-exempt employees continue to report in 15-minute increments?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

B. Should FLSA exempt employees (classified exempt, unclassified) report on the same basis?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

13

C. Should FLSA exempt employees report in hours?

(Vote 1: No – Report 0,4,8: 9G; Report in hours: 1 G, 1 Y)

Reservations:

• negative for campus climate• abuse (fosters actual abuse and creates widespread perception of abuse)

(Vote 2: Yes – Report in hours(x9); Report 0-4-8 (x2))

Reservations:

• changing so many things – “if it’s not broken, don’t ‘fix’ it”(vs. potential for abuse – frequently away just less than 2 hours)

• having a policy in place matters “but people will do what people will do”• same amount of vacation would help• people lack awareness, recognition of amount of work people in exempt jobs do• some people were very happy with the change in ‘07-‘08

Discussion:

• unclassified hourly employees currently report hours worked (“Everyone should report hoursactually worked.”)

• need to raise awareness about differences in exempt/non-exempt employment

Options discussed

Non-Exempt Employees Exempt Employees Exempt Employees

1/4 hour (15 mn) increments hour (60 mn) increments 0, 4, 8 hour increments(Current structure)

Reporting 0, 4, 8 hour increments

Pros Cons

• expectation exempt work > 40 hours/week• variable schedule, often time accounted for with

extra hours (on the same day or within the sameweek)

• HRS set up to record unclassified leave in theseincrements

• major climate/caste issue[comment: “this is a universal issue – same inprivate companies”]

Questions:

• Does FLSA preclude reporting in hours for exempt employees? [no: hourly reporting isallowable for public employees, principle of accountability]

• Does FLSA preclude reporting in hours for non-exempt employees? [regrardless, need 15 mnincrements to calculate over time, comp time]

• Can we provide workplace flexibility given policies against pyramiding & stacking breaks?[raised during “same amount?” discussion]

• What change would make vacation easier to manage?

– same reporting for classified exempt & unclassified employees: small # of people to switch

• What would help the campus climate more?

– same vacation, reported differently? (Same amount much more “visible”)– more similar reporting and different amounts of vacation? (Different practice creates strong

14

sense of unfairness – required to report minutes away vs. may be away for up to 2 hourswithout reporting an absence)

Data request :

• How much overtime was paid in the last year?• How much comp time was earned in the last year?

Source:

Wisconsin Human Resources Handbook. Ch. 520. Administration of the Federal Fair LaborStandards Act and Wisconsin Statutes Pertaining to Hours Worked and Overtime Provisions for StateClassified Employees and Certain Unclassified Employeeshttp://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=4271

520.060 2. b. Salary Basis Test

All employees functioning in an exempt capacity, except exempt limited term employees (LTEs), are paid on a “salarybasis” and therefore will meet this test, unless an exception is granted by the DMRS Administrator. The employee mustreceive his or her full salary for any week in which work is performed without regard to the actual number of days orhours worked, as long as the employee is ready, willing and able to perform work.

Confusion over this provision often arises when public employees claim they are not paid on a salary basis becausevacation, sick leave, etc., must be used to account for the absence, including partial day absences. The FLSA providespublic employers the ability to substitute accrued personal leave (sick leave, annual leave, personal holiday, etc.) forabsences. This ability to substitute paid leave is granted under the principles of public accountability which require thepublic employee’s pay to be reduced or the employee placed on leave without pay for absences for personal reasons orbecause of illness or injury. [Reference 29 C.F.R. Part 541.710, Bulletin OS-66 CC/POL-18 CBB-7, and BulletinCC/POL-27 CBB-15]

Note: The employer’s ability to substitute leave may be superseded when the absence is a covered leave under federalor state family and medical leave laws.

The employer may also choose not to allow time to be charged to paid leave and require the exempt employee to workadditional time as necessary to meet the work requirements of the position whether or not such additional time is on anhour-for-hour basis.

14. Should vacation and sick leave be reported in the same way?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

15. Should vacation carry over be allowed?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• if employer/supervisor disallows vacation (denies, cancels), should there be a mechanism toensure there is no loss to the employee? (payout?)

15

Carry-over vacation

Pros Cons

• flexibility to save for specific use (family event,surgery, vacation)

• don't lose compensation• raise morale (compensate for inability to take time

at end of year)• hedge against unemployment

• difficulty of managing schedules if all carry overand then need/want to take off for a long vacation

• “Everyone needs vacation” vs. “Not everyoneneeds vacation” (employees value/use vacationdifferently)

• expensive pay-out at separation or retirement• potential loss if carry-over expires

16. Should the amount of vacation carry-over be the same for all employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• if there is no difference in eligibility to carry over, encourage employees to use vacation in thesame year it is granted

17. What amount of vacation should employees be allowed to carry over, and for how long?

A. What amount?

(Vote 1: 40-80 hours (x6) vs. all (x3))

(Vote 2: 40 hours (x6), 60 hours (x2), 80 hours (x2))

Reservations:

• people not showing up for work to use up vacation• option to carry all vacation for 6 months a win-lose compromise (everyone gives a little, might

not smart as much)

(Vote 3: 40 hours (x6), 80 hours (x3))

Reservations:

• significant reduction for unclassified employees in ability to earn and now also to carry• current employees will be able to carry 25% vs. 100% of vacation hours• new unclassified employee will receive 52 fewer hours, carry 25% vs. 100% of vacation hours

Discussion:

• we don’t know what the future may bring• offers more flexibility• flexibility is important, highly valued (personal needs, care for family)• people have difference jobs and different needs• perception that unclassified employees have more flexibility and report fewer absences• the new system would allocate more leave, earlier• need to view carry-over in relation to banking and sick leave – with earlier banking, people will

have the opportunity to save more leave [80 hours: 40 carry + 40 bank]• difficult to administer higher carry over – need some limitations• we are trying to recalibrate, get people to use vacation as vacation (rest & relaxation)

16

Amounts discussed:

• all?• all - 36 hours (personal holiday integrated with vacation)?• fraction (25%, 50%, 75%)?• hours (40, 60, 80, 120)?

Benchmarking:

• 1.5x annual accrual to 2x annual accrual

B. How long?(Vote: one year (x8); all for 6 months ( x1); fraction for 6 months (x1))

Carry over periods discussed:

• 6 months• 6 months with supervisor approval [unautomates process, inconsistent HR practice (depends on supv.)]• 1 year

Discussion:

• centered on flexibility & family needs

Carry over for 1 year:

Pros Cons

• easier to track• easier to save• safety net• if many employees use entire allocation, carry over

less of an issue

• lots more vacation on the books• (employer) greater pay-out at separation• scheduling requests – limited capacity to permit

legnthier vacations to employees taking care ofanimals, people, and buildings

C. Starting from year of hire?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

17

Data Source: Office of Human Resources. Info-Access and HRS EPM data. Classified based on January 2011 throughDecember 2011. Unclassified based on July 2010 through June 2011.

• Most employees with continuous employment carry forward some vacation.• Unclassified employees tend to carry forward more hours than classified employees for several

reasons, including:

– carryover is permitted for a greater number of hours– eligibility to receive payment for vacation hours can only occur if employees have completed

25 years of service and the state budget includes funding for a cash payment – eligibility to retain vacation in a reserve account does not occur until the end of the eleventh

year of employment and is limited to 5 days per year until completion of 26 years at whichtime employees can retain 10 days per year

• Of those employees who carryover vacation, the average number of hours are:

– 32.5 hours for classified exempt employees (maximum allowed is 40 hours)– 39 hours for classified non-exempt employees (maximum allowed is 40 hours)– 105 hours for unclassified employees

18

Data Source: Office of Human Resources. Info-Access and HRS EPM data. Classified based on January 2011 throughDecember 2011. Unclassified based on July 2010 through June 2011.

• Unclassified employees tend to lose more vacation hours than classified employees. Potentialreasons for this are:

– unclassified employees are allowed to carryover a greater number of hours than classifiedemployees

– FLSA exempt classified employees with more than five years and any classified employeewho has accumulated at least 520 hours in sick leave in less than ten years are allowed tocash out or bank 40 hours of vacation, but unclassified employees must wait until the 11th

year

• Of those employees who lost vacation, the average number of hours are:

– 13 hours for classified FLSA non-exempt employees– 15 hours for classified FLSA exempt employees– 56 hours for unclassified employees

19

18. Should leave banking be allowed?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• Faculty ALRA, all others sabbatical [Question posed: Why are faculty different?]• Need a central bank for leave (vs. burden on individual departments/units)• If allowed, could limit to cash-out –OR– limit to extending appointment using vacation• Could allow employees to accumulate & use banked vacation during employment, but have

only a portion available at termination of employment (Keep based on family/medical needduring employment but limit amount paid out/extended at end of employment)

Leave banking

Pros Cons

(employee)• what you put in you never lose – protects against

loss of vacation time, compensation• ability to reserve for extraordinary needs• extend termination date (continue health insurance

at lower rate)(employer)• promotes less vacation use

(employee)• promotes less vacation use(employer)• extend termination date (financial burden: cost of

payout, cost of not hiring/work backlog, delaysearch & hire, on the hook for fringe @ 58%)

19. Should there be one leave banking program for all employees?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

20. Should the amount of leave an employee can bank be capped?(Vote: Yes, at 6 months (x8); at 1 year (x2))

Reservations:

• unlikely to accumulate a year’s worth of leave – if someone can do it, let him or her do it• useful for someone who has to retire early

22. How much leave should an employee be permitted to bank? When? Should the amount increase?

A. Increase?(Vote: Yes, initial amount + 1 “bump” – 8G, 2Y)

Reservations:

• if we cap the amount an employee can bank and starting banking earlier, is there a need? Wouldit help an employee or simply create frustration when people max out their leave banking early?

B. How much? When?(Vote: Yes, 40 hours at 6 years, 80 hours at 12 years – unanimous)

Discussion:

• a retention plus’• earlier ability to bank – 10 years “too long”• reward longevity: additional perquisite after last vacation “bump”• university needs to budget better (central budgeting for banked leave?)• university needs ability to refill positions – extended absences lead to work backlogs

20

• prefer 8-year minimum – parallels current pattern (banking begins ~8-11 years) and fits with cap• extending to 20 years would provide a longevity incentive (+ 5 years from vacation max)• “bumps” should align with increases in vacation• earlier banking would help compensate for low carry-over allowance• data: only 86 employees banked 160 hours; 50 (34 exempt, 16 non-exempt) banked 120 hours;

classified exempt banked average of 50 hours; unclassified staff currently limited to 40 hours &average banked = 40 hours (expected to rise in new system given current carry-over data and lossof ability to carry more than 40 hours)

Options discussed:

• 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 hours?• 5 years 40, 10 years 80, max @ 20 years (vs. 15-20 max amt vacation)• 5 years 20, 10 years 40, 15 years 60, 20 years 80• 5 years 24, 10 years 40, 15 years 64, 20 years 80 hours• 40 hours at 10 years, 80 hours at 20 years?• 40 hours at 9 years, 80 hours at 18 years?• 40 hours at 10 years, 80 hours at 15 years

– enter at 160 hours = 20 days = 4 weeks– bank 40 hours at 200 hours = 25 days = 5 weeks (at 10 years)– bank 80 hours at 240 hours = 30 days = 6 weeks (at 15 years)

• 40 hours at 6 years, 80 hours at 12 years?• retention: use as reward, possibly as early as 5 years (with a cap)• no tie to sick leave

How much? (20 days x 8 hours = 160 hours = 1 month)

40 hours/year 80 hours/year 160 hours/year

4 years to earn one month48 years to earn one year

2 years to earn one month24 years to earn one year

1 year to earn one month12 years to earn one year

23: Should there be a pay-out option for leave banking?(No)

Discussion:

• we have serious reservations – need to limit exposure to multiple, large pay-outs

Implementation issues:

• “grandfathering”: should employees with > 6 months of Sabbatical/ALRA at conversion– keep banked leave?– spend down excess banked leave?– receive a pay-out for some portion of banked leave?

• need to calculate & budget for anticipated costs (keep longitudinal data)

21

Data Source: Office of Human Resources. Info-Access and HRS EPM data. Classified based on January 2011 throughDecember 2011. Unclassified based on July 2010 through June 2011.

• Of those employees who converted vacation to sabbatical or ALRA during this period, theaverage number of hours banked was:

– 45 hours for classified exempt employees– 49.5 hours for classified non-exempt employees– 42 hours for unclassified employees

• Only classified employees who earn vacation at a rate of 216 hours are allowed to bank up to 120hours as sabbatical.

Current system

ALRAUnclassified Employees

SabbaticalClassified Non-Exempt Employees

SabbaticalClassified Exempt Employees

end of 11th FY: bank up to 40 hrsend of 26th FY: bank up to 80 hrs

520 hours of sick leave -OR-10 yrs - 160 hrs: bank up to 40 hrs20 yrs - 200 hrs: bank up to 80 hrs25 yrs - 216 hrs: bank up to 120 hrs

520 hours of sick leave -OR-10 yrs - 176 hrs: bank up to 40 hrs15 yrs - 200 hrs: bank up to 80 hrs20 yrs - 216 hrs: bank up to 120 hrs

22

24. Should we allow employees to cash out unused vacation? If yes, when and how much?(Vote: No – 4R, 3Y, 1G)

Discussion:

• currently available to 3500 classified staff and used by 10% (available at 20 years)What would be the cost if we extrapolate to all eligible employees? Assuming 10% (1734employees) request a payout of 40 hours, at a salary of $40,000 cost would be $1,313,636.36($1.3M). [Note: University’s Strategic Hiring Fund for 2011-2012 is $1M.]

• How would caps on carry-over and banking affect cash-out? Could be higher than 10% if welimit carry-over to 40 hours (average unclassified carry is 96.08 hours).

• university’s costs could increase dramatically with earlier leave banking and/or additionalemployees cashing out leave

• issue at end of fiscal year: Are $ available for cash out? (very hard for smaller, less affluentdepartments/units; costs could prevent hiring)

• seen as a perquisite – allows employees additional flexibility• may make a meaningful difference for some employees (end-of-the-year Christmas money)

[moving payout to 30 June would change that]• could divide cash-out payments, twice each year would help ease budgetary strain• vacation as compensation vs. rest & rejuvenation (re-balance, bring UW culture back toward the

middle ground)

Data Source: Office of Human Resources. Info-Access and HRS EPM data. Classified based on January 2011 throughDecember 2011. Unclassified based on July 2010 through June 2011.

A limited number of classified employees cash out vacation hours.Due to Regent policy, unclassified employees do not currently have this option.

23

25. Should employees be allowed to buy or sell additional leave?[Note: Conversation does not address Trades employees.](No)

26. Should employees be allowed to donate leave to a spouse/partner?(Vote: No – unanimous)

27. Should employees be allowed to donate leave to a Leave Share program?(Yes – continue discussion in April)

28. Should leave be paid out at separation during an employee’s probationary or evaluation period?(Vote: Yes, as earned after 30 days (x6) vs. as earned (x2))

Discussion:

• majority of positions have a 6-month probationary/evaluation period (permissive probation canbe shorter, small number of positions have a 2-year evaluation period)

• usually know whether an employee will complete probationary/evaluation period successfully at4-5 months

• now 36 hours, pro-rated [because we pay out personal holiday? edit?]• consistency – pay out what is earned during the probationary/evaluation period• pay back for overuse• “no pay-out” would result in high level of administrative effort, repayment of excess vacation

used (“Day One” availability should continue; we want the benefits of access to vacation)• cost of commitment – don’t incentivize cycling through employees• may be less successful retention of newcomers in 2 & 3 shift positions (4 10-hr days) [data?]nd rd

Options considered:

None (No, Vote: 0)As earned (No, Vote: 2)As earned after 30 days (Yes, Vote: 6)Pay out after 6 months of employment (No, Vote: 0)

Question:

• Do we have data on the number of employees who separate before the end of theirprobationary/evaluation period? Do not complete the probationary/evaluation periodsuccessfully? What % separation vs. % transfer?

Appendix 7: Sick Leave

Decision Points:

1. Should all University of Wisconsin-Madison employees receive sick leave?(Continue to discuss options for employees who do not currently receive sick leave in April. Shouldthere be different plans for some non-WRS employees?)

Discussion:

• Prorated base on hours of employment, % FTE

24

• Students:

– < 10 hours/week, usually may reschedule with supervisor’s permission– many people can’t reschedule due to event timing, class & other work commitments– dept. may not hire students > 10 hours/week if sick leave is required (detrimental to students)– other benefits accrue to student hourly workers (FICA exception; academic breaks)

• LTE's

– some FT, some PT– offering sick leave could promote LTE conversion (with leave, cost of hiring an LTE

becomes more comparable to hiring WRS employees)– employees who are not WRS-eligible can’t bank or convert leave. Would it be better to

provide more flexible leave (e.g., PTO or payout option)?

Emerging idea

• prorated PTO with payout (w/ waiting period of 30 days? tied to project lifespan?) in lieu ofcarry-over option

Question:

• With legislative change, will there be more flexibility to add positions? (Is the number of LTEemployees expected to rise or fall?

Note: Decision points 2 and 3 refer to University of Wisconsin-Madison WRS-eligibleclassified exempt, classified non-exempt, and unclassified A-basis (12-month) employees.

2. Should all employees receive the same amount of sick leave? If so, how much?(Vote: Yes, 120 hours (15 days)/year, prorated for part time employment (x9); 128 hours (x2))

Reservations:

• change management - reactions to receiving fewer hours of sick leave• equity – affects lower paid employees more (-10 hours for current classified employees, leave

without pay when sick leave exhausted, less $ for health care in retirement)• current employees would not benefit from proposed initial allocation (40 hours)

Discussion:

• cash value at retirement – $ value confounded by salary differences between classified &unclassified employees (classified employees accrue more, unclassified employees generallyhave higher salaries; could offer the same amount & allocate within salary ranges)

• history: used to be 4 + 4 = 8 (now 5 + 5 = 10) hours/month. Bargaining for benefits in lieu ofincreased compensation

• job = life choice vs. structural constraints• sick leave is supposed to be for preserving individual & public health, job/income protections;

use based on need (vs. “like vacation”)• change represents a small increase for unclassified staff, small decrease for classified employees• initial allocation would (partially?) offset decrease for classified employees• ICI – may affect premium contribution (more difficult to maintain 80 hours/year?)• ICI – consistent sick leave allocation for classified exempt & classified non-exempt an

improvement• “round number”/FTE (but there will always be fractions in the system due to prorating for PT)• implementation: cost of leave would rise (current use, additional hours converted at retirement)• mechanics of adjusting HRS

25

Single sick leave policy for all employees

Pros Cons

• consistency - simplify/streamline• easier to administer one program• employees less likely to come to work sick if they

have paid leave• provides more flexibility for the most insecure

workers

• equity: amount varies based on salary so amountaccrued would yield different benefit

Options considered:

96 hours (12 days)/year – earn 8 hours (1 day)/month (x0 votes)120 hours (15 days)/year (x9 votes)128 hours (16 days) (x2 votes)130 hours (16.25 days) – same 5 hours biweekly, 10.83 hours monthly (discarded this option)

Benchmarking – several peers offer 96 hours

Question:

• There has been a stated commitment that there will be no decrease in employee compensation.Does this apply to benefits as part of the total compensation package?

Group intention: employees would keep the sick leave they have already accrued, but would earnat the new rate going forward.

Group commitment: holistic review of total benefits package before finalizing recommendations

3. How should sick leave be earned and accrued? Should employees receive an initial allotment of 40hours at hire to last 4 months (prorated for part time appointments); then accrue and use sick leave asearned, with no limit to amount that can be accrued?(Vote: Yes – 10 G , 1Y)

Reservation:

Would like more details on implementation of 40-hour initial allocation

Further discussion:

• 40 hours = 4 month’s sick leave earnings• provides similar flexibility to personal holiday• possible implementation models (for illustrative purposes only, no selection process):

A. pro-rated (nominal amount) earned in month of hire + 40 hours allocated 1st of the monthfollowing hire + accrue starting 1st day of the 5th month

B. 40 hours allocated day 1 + accrue earnings (pro-rated for month or pay period) at 120 days +accrue by pay period

C. 40 hours allocated day 1 (number of days may vary depending on start date within the firstmonth) + accrue starting 1st day of the 5th month

Discussion:

• lose-win for unclassified employees: less than initial allotment but eventually would earn more• win-lose for classified employees: gain initial allotment but accrue less• [minimal] changes accrual toward retirement (initial allotment of 40 hours: +1 hour)

26

Options considered:

Initial allocation, then earn & accrue hours (unclassified model = 176 hours over 18 months):

Pros Cons

• provides flexibility to meet employee needsrecruitment advantage

• difficult to administer (beyond facultyappointments)

• costs if employee uses leave and departs• inequality of current system (classified employees

do not receive an initial allocation; unclassifiedemployees receive less thereafter – “It never equalsout” [accrual toward retirement])

Hybrid model (smaller initial allocation provides flexibility/coverage at hire; then accrue at 3-5 months):

Earn as you go (classified model)

Pros Cons

• easier to administer• decreases losses to UW [HRS prevents charging

un-earned sick leave]• other mechanisms (ADA, unpaid leave) to

accommodate employee needs

• inflexible• may hurt recruitment• disadvantages employees who have a health

condition that will change (e.g., pregnant women,individual recovering from injury, surgery, etc.)

Question:

• How/why did the unclassified system initial allocation start? What was the rationale when thesystem was created?

Appendix 8: State Health Insurance Conversion Credit (SHICC)

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison create a parallel SHICC program?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison advocate for statutory change (ending SHICC as anadministrative program that must be approved biannually in the UW compensation plan and re-creating SHICC as a statutory program, like ASLCC)?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Source:

Memo from Bob Lavigna (Director, OHR) to all employees, re: Update on sick leave conversion(9 June 2011): http://budget.wisc.edu/budget-news/update-on-sick-leave-conversion/

ASLCC allows retiring employees to convert all of their unused sick leave into a dollar amount to pay retiree healthinsurance premiums. Since this benefit is provided by statute, it would require legislative action to change it. There is nolanguage in the biennial budget bill currently before the Legislature that would change ASLCC. Even if ASLCC werechanged, statutory provisions prevent those changes from being imposed retroactively.

The SHICC program allows employees with at least 15 years of state service to convert additional sick leave when theyretire, for the same purpose....Unlike ASLCC, SHICC is an administrative benefit rather than a statutory benefit. As such, itcan be changed through a change to the state Compensation Plan. The Office of State Employment Relations (OSER) willbe submitting the 2011-13 Compensation Plan to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JCOER) forapproval in the next few weeks.

27

Appendix 9: Unpaid Leave

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer unpaid leave for all employees, under a single policy?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Specified Circumstances:

• employee’s own serious health condition

– initial requests for leave up to six months– if initial request for leave < six months, employer can approve extensions up to six months– approval for leave up to one year using reasonable accommodation analysis– approved unpaid leave runs concurrently with unpaid leave under FMLA/WFMLA

• care for a family member with a serious health condition

– definition of family member includes domestic partners, children to whom the employeestands in loco parentis

• parental leave

– continue option of unpaid parental leave up to one year

• leave without pay to seek political office or appointment

– follow UPPP 16.01. Leaves of Absence & Temporary Assignments without Paywww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1601.htm

• leave without pay related to professional service

– follow UPPP 16.01. Leaves of Absence & Temporary Assignments without Paywww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1601.htm

Unpaid leave

Pros Cons

• Provides flexibility to employees, supportingabsences to deal with personal & familyemergencies

• Costs associated with absences• LTE’s don’t work in many positions because of

training and experience requirements• cannot fill an FTE while EE is on an unpaid leave

Questions:

• How often is an employee eligible to request unpaid leave?• What period of unpaid leave should be available? (consistency across employment categories)• Can an employee take unpaid leave on a reduced schedule?• Should the University have a Leave Coordinator to manage return-to-work, FMLA, LWOP

related to an employee’s own serious health condition or the serious health condition of a familymember?

Appendix 10: Parental Leave(We are continuing to work on recommendations related to parental leave.)

Decision point:Does we support, in principle, parental leave for childbirth or adoption for all employees?(Vote: Yes – 8G, 1Y)

28

Reservation:

• cost and coverage issues

Discussion:

• part of a comprehensive family leave system (birth/adoption, dependent care, care forpartner/spouse, elder care)

• most employees cannot take advantage of the university’s generous unpaid leave policy (cannotafford unpaid leave – want a “real” policy)

• new employees may not have worked at the university long enough to be eligible forFMLA/WFMLA or to have accrued sufficient paid leave to cover leave for birth/adoption

• C-basis (9-month) faculty and academic staff do not receive vacation and must rely on accruedsick leave to cover leave for birth/adoption.

Note: A new C-basis employee – who receives a non-lapsing sick leave balance of 176 hours(22 days), prorated for part-time, at hire and earns 10.7 hours/month thereafter – wouldneed to work at the university for 22 months, without using any sick leave, to earnenough to fully cover a 12 week leave (60 days).]

• consistency across employment categories (universal need, “simplify, simplify”)• U.S. far behind other parts of the world [cite Expecting More study]• R1 faculty career decreases the likelihood of parenthood [cite Drago study]• lots of feedback at forums• calculating FMLA/WFMLA eligibility – calendar vs. fiscal year• preserve opportunity to take additional unpaid leave beyond 12 weeks• out of pay status – employee must pay full health insurance premium after 3 monthrd

• discuss leave banking for birth – additional carry-over?• SDI payroll tax (.9%) in California – everyone is covered• like the idea of exploring wage insurance/short-term disability insurance (employee choice,

personal responsibility)• concerned about the idea of relying on wage insurance (monthly premium a higher cost for

employee – though helps contain costs for the university, may make paid parental leave possible;may not be a planned pregnancy – occur outside enrollment)

• coverage issues, protection for employees shouldering the load (hire LTE’s/project employees?pool of permanent employees “float”? re-prioritize and defer some tasks?)

• university is administratively lean – may need to increase staff in some areas• benefit will not be used by all employees• parents will have to use more leave over the years• at a minimum, need a “safety net” for employees without accrued leave [cite CWU]• explore donating leave (Leave Share)• explore AFLAC (also offers dental coverage)• explore ICI+ (waiting period < 30 days); ICI replaces 75% of wages• explore offering a supplemental wage insurance (in addition to ICI)

Possible features:

• coverage for 2 weeks? 4 weeks? 6 weeks? 8 weeks?• model: using wage insurance/short-term disability leave to cover a portion of the leave

one possible model is: 100% paid leave for 2 weeks (for an employee without coverage) or“top-up” pay for 8 weeks (with coverage, assuming insurance covers 50% of salary over atleast 8 weeks)

29

Source:

UPPP 16.02. Sick Leave, Vacation, ALRA, Bereavement Leave, Jury Duty, & other Leaves with Paywww.ohr.wisc.edu/polproced/UPPP/1602.htm

Appendix 11: Bereavement Leave(We are continuing to work on recommendations related to bereavement leave.)

Decision point:Should the University of Wisconsin Madison create a new bereavement leave benefit?(Vote 2: No – 3G + 1Y + 5R)

Reservations

• current system (using accrued paid leave) appears to be working• we have not heard concerns about access to leave; concerns expressed have been about

flexibility, extended absences when travel is necessary• continuing opportunity to hear voices from campus on this issue• new benefit not a high initial cost (paying salary vs. leave) but potentially burdensome, costly to

administer (many events expected in each employee's working life; who decides “value” of aparticular death in the family? how to verify?)

• weight of discussion is shifting (does not feel legitimate)• offering additional vacation and sick leave is more important, has greater impact, provides more

flexibility

Discussion:

• one policy, consistent for all employees• continue current practice: allow employees to use sick leave for a specified period of time and

use other accrued leave if needed for special circumstances

ER 18.03 (4)(d) (d). For a death in the immediate family, use of accrued sick leave due to a death in the immediatefamily is limited to a total of 3 work days, plus required travel time not to exceed 4 additional work days. However theappointing authority may extend the use of sick leave to cover unusual circumstances.

• we need to include a statement about flexibility, especially for international travelC Bereavement Leave could be integrated into Leave Share program

Bereavement leave

Pros Cons

• option value• many peer institutions offer this benefit

(benchmarking)• part of being a family-friendly university

(across employee life cycle)• Campus message: allow flexibility to deal

with the employee’s loss• aging workforce – employees may experience

more loss• vacation freighted with many values --

creating bereavement leave could helprebalance

• few comments from campus on the need for anew bereavement leave benefit

• employees receive a lot of paid leave (sickleave, vacation) and currently use accruedsick leave, vacation to cover absences relatedto a death; new benefit would add additionalnew paid leave costs

• cost (first preliminary poll: 1-5 days)• one day “a slap in the face”• uncomfortable assigning a value to family

relationships (spouse/partner, child, parent vs.sibling, aunt/uncle, et al.)

• less significant recruitment/retentionadvantage than other benefits (e.g., parentalleave)

30

Options discussed:

• offer 1 day of paid leave for all bereavement circumstances, plus use of accrued paid leavefor additional days away

• offer 1-5 days of paid leave, depending on relationship to deceased family member

Appendix 12: Leave Share

Possible features:

• any employee can donate any paid leave at any time to be used by any employee• donation not confined by employment category• allowed to donate sick leave as well as vacation• no limit to donation amount (vs. maximum donation of 5 days – Catastrophic Leave)• could donate leave to a specific employee in need or make an unassigned donation• budgeted & administered centrally (vs. at departmental or divisional level)

– incorporate lost carry over vacation

* 5500 unclassified inj 2010-2011 (note: furlough year)* significantly less for classified staff

– central bank vs. hours bank: explore possibility of maintaining salary value of donated leave,“charge” by salary level of user

– hours do not “expire” (Leave Share program balance carries year-to-year)

Concerns:

• leave for Graduate Assistants is tracked at the department level, not “on the books”• cannot donate leave paid through grants• government & non-profit funds have an “end date” (vs. 101 funds)

Questions for further discussion:

• Would we combine Leave Share with Catastrophic Leave, offer in addition to Catastrophic Leave?• When/how often/under what circumstances would an employee be eligible to participate in

Leave Share? (one-time use vs. available every “x” years)• Who would administer the program?

(Design to be self-funding, 15 hours/week? – concern: donated leave should be used byemployees in need vs. paying administrator’s salary)

Appendix 13: Life Insurance

Decision points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental life insurance policy?(Yes)

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison provide $5,000-$10,000 paid term life insurance foreach employee?(Vote: No – 1G, 1Y, 7R)

Reservations:

• other employers offer 1 x salary, don’t think it would be a substantial cost for the employer

31

• unclear how this option would mesh with State Group Life Insurance• $5,000 is not very generous• life insurance is not a recruitment tool (not harmful but no significant gain)• would not be attractive to short-term employees• should be an individual choice – might not be needed/wanted if employee has provided otherwise• employees have other options to get free/low-cost life insurance (e.g., through credit union)• “cafeteria” options in life insurance shopping cart would give employees more choice, flexibility

Discussion:

• need a transparent review & selection process, periodic review of all supplemental insurances• life insurance presents several “life cycle” obstacles:

– most options only allow employees to elect coverage at hire; employees may not value lifeinsurance earlier in their careers

– coverage for spouse/partner may drop off (group to individual policy conversion)– policy value may decline significantly (doesn’t mesh with today’s longer life expectancy,

expectation of good health, later retirements)

E.g., State Group Life (EFF): An employee who retires at age 62 maintains all coverage toage 65. After age 65 supplemental and additional coverage ends. Spouse and dependentcoverage does not continue after retirement; it can be converted but you lose the group rate.

Basic coverage drops to 50% of its current value at age 66. An active employee’s basiccoverage drops to 50% of its value at age 70. If still employed by the state, employees canpurchase additional coverage at age 70+.

E.g., Individual & Family Group Life and UW Employees, Inc. Life: At separation ofemployment, an employee can currently convert these policies though it costs more forcoverage.

• AD&D needs to remain a separate supplemental insurance

– very different from the other life insurance options– opt-in/opt-out at will feature does not mesh with term or whole life policy options

• too many plans to choose among/from – confusing for employees and difficult to administer

Currently university offers five choices – State Group Life and four supplemental plans:Individual and Family Group Life Insurance, UW Employees Inc. Life Insurance, UniversityInsurance Association Life Insurance, and Accidental Death & Dismemberment Life Insurance

• some employees don’t like mandatory enrollment in UIA• insufficient coverage levels in some cases, would like range of options (premium selection vs.

salary-driven system); plan based on need instead of salary would reduce inequities in the cost oflife insurance for employees

• eliminate “drop-off” age, or increase to reflect changing retirement age (coverage may cost more)• offer a whole-life option: protects employee with health history that might preclude future

coverage, option to borrow against coverage (may be better than long term care insurance)• develop a “shopping cart” that allows employees to cost & select various levels of coverage,

coverage for spouse/partner & dependents, etc. (OHR e-Benefits walk-through prototype)[extend to all benefit enrollment options]

Questions:

• How were current plans selected? (UWS negotiates with Minnesota Life, EPIC for AD&D)• Are there standard rates (“these are the rates we offer”) or is there room to negotiate different rates?• How does open enrollment differ from guaranteed acceptance?• Could UW-Madison be self-insured?

32

• Would a non-profit carrier be more flexible than commercial carrier?• Does a 50% drop-off of benefit at age 66 serve people’s needs? Could life insurance be linked to

the federal retirement age?• Would a whole life policy option be in demand? (option value, more competitive benefit package)• What is the definition of employee? (All employees, WRS-eligible employees)• Will it be possible to grandfather continuing employees in current plans? A conversion option?

Portability?

Source:

Comparison chartwww.bussvc.wisc.edu/ecbs/sgl-life-insurance-features-comparison-chart-uw1261.pdf

Appendix 13: Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison continue to offer one Accidental Death & Dismembermentpolicy that allows employees to opt-in and opt-out at any time and choose the level of coverage on theopt-in date, and that includes travel coverage when a covered injury is sustained outside the UnitedStates?(Yes)

Discussion:

• differs from other life insurance plans (Please see: Life Insurance, above)• features we like added to create a “cafeteria plan?”

Appendix 14: Dental Insurance

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental dental insurance policy for allemployees?(Yes)

Discussion

• open enrollment rarely offered• many State Group Health plans (HMOs) cover routine dental care – but dental coverage is not

one of the Uniform Benefits (HMO’s choose to offer dental coverage); we should offer a dentalplan that includes basic coverage

• issues with consistency of coverage related to changes in HMO plans, providers• simplify: many options create confusion (Anthem Dental – will be withdrawn in 2013, Dental

Wisconsin, EPIC Benefits Plus)– If an employee has an HMO and one, or more, of the supplemental plans, the bills are

currently paid in the following order: HMO, Dental WI, Epic– WPS owns EPIC – underwrites EPIC benefit policies, vision and contracts with Delta Dental

(We offer Epic and Dental Wisconsin plans – but they are the same vendor)

• Minnesota Life underwrites many of our supplemental insurances; could MN Life offer plans fordental, vision, major medical insurances?

• we need to focus on desired features, rather than specific vendors (implementation issue)

33

Questions

• Could we recommend that Employee Trust Funds (EFF) review HMO coverage, update policiesto ensure coverage reflects current knowledge & best practice in dentistry?

• Is it more cost-effective to work with a single vendor, or work directly with service providerswith whom the vendor contracts? (Epic, Dental Wisconsin)

Source:

Comparison chartwww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/ins/dental-2012-plan-comparison.pdf

Appendix 15: Vision Insurance

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental vision insurance policy for allemployees?(Yes)

Discussion:

• enrollment opportunities differ – annual open enrollment for Vision Service Plan (VSP) but notfor EPIC Benefits + Vision Insurance

• some State Group Health plans (HMOs) cover vision – seeking to improving basic coveragewithin HMOs might increase premium costs for everyone; we should offer a vision plan thatincludes basic coverage

• progressive lenses are not covered and many people want them• providers:

– some HMOs currently cover an eye exam, though discount providers are not covered– VSP does not have many vendors outside of Dane County (trying to expand network)– Optum Health Vision had better coverage outside Dane County

• co-pays for various options differ (in-network providers offer greater benefits; $ limit for out-of-network providers)

Source:

Comparison charthttp://uwservice.wisc.edu/docs/publications/vision-2011-compare.pdf

Appendix 16: Major Medical Insurance

Decision Point:Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer one supplemental major medical policy for allemployees?(Yes)

Discussion:

• EPIC Benefits + provides additional dental, excess medical, accidental death anddismemberment, and optional vision coverage, plus a complimentary vision discount program

• most employees don’t select EPIC for Accidental Death & Dismemberment coverage• it’s confusing to offer vision and dental under EPIC as well as separate supplemental insurances

34

• there is no coverage for routine dental services, but the flexibility to choose any dentist• EPIC covers durable medical equipment (many HMO’s don’t)• major medical is intended to offer a “safety net” (recent changes make EPIC plan less desirable,

we would need a “renewed” EPIC plan for viable coverage)• ERA maximum limit may decrease in 2013; this would have a negative impact on employees

who need expensive services• could major medical insurance offer coverage for a short period of time (less expensive than

COBRA, during the period between hire and start date for State Health Insurance coverage)?• we need a cost-effective solution, don’t know what can/cannot be negotiated

Questions:

• Could a major medical plan offer an option to cover grandparents? Additional dependents?• Does major medical insurance offer an alternative for employees who cannot afford health

insurance, or who are not eligible for State Group Health? (lower premium, high deductible,safety net in the event of costly accident or illness)

• Would it be possible for EPIC (or other 3rd party provider) to provide ONE supplemental planwith options to select major medical, extended dental, extended vision (and options within eachof these plans)? And/or, could we advocate for HMO’s to provide better coverage and/or add-oncoverage options so people could stick with just one plan – in the simplify, simplify mode?

• Is it cost effective to contract with a vendor who subcontracts with other vendors?

Source:

Coverage detailswww.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/ins/epicenroll.pdf

Appendix 17: Long-Term Care(We do not have a recommendation at this time.)

Discussion:

• we have concerns about whether long term care offers a good deal for employees• many stories in the press recently about families not being well-served – plans covering only a

fraction of actual costs, lengthy waiting periods, etc.• requires further research

Appendix 18: State Group Health Insurance

Decision Point:

1. Should all University of Wisconsin-Madison employees who are eligible for State Group HealthInsurance receive “Day One” coverage (coverage beginning the first day of the month after theapplication for health insurance is received; application due within 30 days of hire)?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• Wisconsin Statute 40.05(4)(a)(2), which requires classified employees to wait until the 1 day ofst

the 3 month of employment before receiving the employer contribution toward the State Grouprd

Health Insurance, should no longer apply• in the event the statute continues to apply, university should explore other ways to cover cost

35

“Day One” health care coverage

Pros Cons

• recruitment plus - coverage within the first monthof employment will motivate people to apply forpositions here

• current situation is not equitable: most unclassifiedemployees are eligible the first of the month aftertheir hire date, classified employees are not eligiblefor two months after their hire date

• ensuring that all employees eligible for state grouphealth be eligible at the same time increasesconsistency and equity

• increased costs (will need to look at the averagenumber of classified employees hired each year toproject costs)

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison advocate at the federal level to end Imputed Income(for domestic partner health insurance)?(Yes)

Discussion:

• imputed income for domestic partner health insurance the greatest remaining inequity in domestic partner benefits

• “grossing up” compensation to cover the full cost (health insurance plus imputed income) offersa stop-gap alternative, instituted by ~35 major employers since 2009

Source:

Human Rights Campaign: Domestic Partner Benefits: Grossing up to Offset Imputed Income Taxwww.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefits-grossing-up-to-offset-imputed-income-tax

3. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison explore ways to reduce current costs and contain futurecosts of health care, especially costs incurred as a result of Act 10, with a focus on mitigatingfinancial hardship to low-income employees?(Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• increases in premiums and out of pocket expenses were a really big deal for employees – wereceived a lot of feedback from the campus community that this change has created financialhardship for many, especially our lower paid employees

Questions:

• How can we make health care more affordable for all employees, and especially for low-incomeemployees? Have faculty and staff experts in this area written position papers, published studiesthat would be helpful? (e.g., from La Follette School of Public Affairs, Institute for Research onPoverty, Sociology, School of Social Work, School of Medicine & Public Health, Management& Human Resources)

36

4. Should State Group Health Insurance offer three coverage levels (Single, Employee + 1, Family)?(No)

Source:

Act 32 Health Insurance Options Feasibility Study (October 2011)Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Office of State Employment Relationshttp://etf.wi.gov/publications/Health-Ins-Opt-Study.pdf

This study found, based on EFF enrollment, employees eligible for employee + 1 coverage have an actuarially higher costfactor than those for all other family groupings combined, including employee+spouse+dependents. This is because theygenerally consist of an older population.

5. Should State Group Health Insurance offer a low-premium, high deductible (or higher co-insurance) plan?(No. Additional research is needed in order to consider a higher deductible or co-insurancerecommendation.)

Question:

• Could there be a lower premium for some other type of exchange?

Source:

Act 32 Health Insurance Options Feasibility Study (October 2011)Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Office of State Employment Relationshttp://etf.wi.gov/publications/Health-Ins-Opt-Study.pdf

The analysis in this study is mixed regarding whether participation in a high-deductible health plan fosters appropriate,timely treatment or whether higher out-of-pocket costs discourage participants from seeking appropriate care.

6. Should State Group Health Insurance move from “co-insurance” to a “co-pay” system?(Maybe. We prefer “co-pay” but additional research/expertise is needed to make a recommendation.)

Discussion:

• co-pays are more clear, consistent and predictable compared to co-insurance• co-insurance is difficult to understand – bills are confusing, hard to predict what an appointment

or procedure will cost• maximum out-of-pocket costs might increase with a co-pay system (unless participant costs

capped)

7. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer an incentive for employees who already havehealth insurance to “opt out” of State Group Health Insurance?(Vote: No – 8R, 1Y)

Discussion

• possible cost-savings to university: provide some type of incentive for employees who alreadyhave health insurance coverage to “opt out” of the State Group Health Plan (employer pays anemployee who would take health insurance a monthly amount to not apply for the health plan,thus saving employer from paying full cost of the employer contribution)

• possible alternative to have employer make an additional contribution to the employee’s WRSRetirement account in lieu of a cash payment

• employee would need to show proof of similar health-care coverage• if employee’s spouse/partner subsequently lost coverage, he or she would have 30 days to “opt

in” to State Group Health (loss of coverage considered a “life event”)

37

• concerns

– sending a message (explicitly, implicitly) that the university does not want to supportemployees’ health care costs

– financially burdened employee might accept incentive, then drop coverage (unable to pay)– financial burden to employer (we are proposing other potentially costly benefits)

Opt-out incentive

Pros Cons

• potentially, save money • not equitable for single employees• should not send explicit or implicit message that

employee should not take health care benefit• difficult to keep track of continued coverage for the

employee• with recent increase in premiums, employees who

had double coverage may have dropped one planalready

• increased administrative burden – now anemployee can decline at no cost the University

8. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison develop sliding-scale health insurance premiums basedon an employee’s salary/income?(Team split on this issue)

Discussion:

• could offer three premium tiers based on income brackets (each employee pays a % of his or hersalary to cover the premium)

Sliding scale premiums based on income

Pros Cons

• philosophy: health care a public good, public cost • everyone needs access to health care, best funded

through progressive payment structure (like tieredtaxation); not fair to ask lowest-paid employees tosurrender a higher proportion of their income;employees who can afford to should contributemore

• philosophy: health care a private good, private cost• employees choose health insurance, pay fee for

service (equivalent to buying loaf of bread, gallonof gas, etc.); not fair to ask employees with highersalaries to pay more

• administrative burden

9. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison develop a health care premium relief grant similar tothe University of Minnesota’s Medical Premium Relief Program (1-year program)?(No)

Discussion:

• Minnesota program provides assistance to lower-paid employees; qualifying families receive$200-$450, based on total household income

• like the program’s intent, but don’t know how the university could sustain program funding (giftfunds? donations? surcharge of $2-5 on all employees?)

• need would ebb and flow based on economic fluctuations and university budget (difficult toadminister: would we give more or less money? tighten or loosen program guidelines?)

• insufficient amount to truly help employees with health care costs – a “band-aid”

38

• need to address root causes of the problem– promote more accessible, affordable health care (merits special study)– address low compensation, failure of compensation to keep pace with costs of living

10. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison develop additional health care insurance option(s) foremployees who are required by their work to live outside of the State of Wisconsin?(Not at this time – Standard Plan at Tier 2 rates covers these employees)

Discussion:

• small number of employees affected now, could become more important later in the 21 centuryst

• Standard Plan, Tier 2 rate, covers employees living out-of-state – allows employee to go to anydoctor anywhere in the United States or the world (preferred provider)

• with respect to faculty and instructional academic staff, face-to-face teaching can be augmentedbut not replaced by distance education

Questions:

• What does private sector do in this situation? Google? Other IT employers?• Should employees who are required to live outside state boundaries because of their employment

pay the same costs for health insurance, health care as someone living in Dane County (despitecost-of-living differences)?

Appendix 19: ICI(We are continuing to discuss recommendations related to ICI.)

Discussion:

• harder for some employees to accumulate sick leave (e.g., single parent, employee withsignificant medical condition)

• disparity in how employees currently receive sick leave (“pot up front” vs. accumulate over time)• could simplify and make program more equitable with one waiting period for all employees• preserving element of choice would let employee select “comfortable amount of risk”• “opt-out” provision would send a message that ICI is a valuable benefit, should be considered

(automatically signed up unless you reject the benefit, vs. “opt in” system)• could we offer a premium holiday to encourage employees to sign up? [no – previous premium

holiday initiated by the insurer, not the university]• one “free” option would encourage employees to take this benefit• consider: employer pays, employer pays 100% at specified level?• waiting period of 1040 hours (130 8-hour days) is equivalent to 8-10 year’s worth of sick leave;

need to reduce the waiting period to a more reasonable amount of time (~3 year’s worth of leave)• consider supplemental wage insurance as alternative to EFF program if changes are not possible

Single waiting period:

Pros Cons

• consistency• clarity• easier to administer

• employees may not see need at hire (ICI is “a hardsell to younger employees”); cost may lead them todecline coverage

39

Choice of waiting periods:

Pros Cons

• free option encourages employees to enroll – goodfor employees to have something in place, even ifwaiting period is not optimal

• how long can employees survive financiallywithout income?

• requires evidence of insurability to reduce waitingperiod (easy to move to a longer waiting period,very difficult to move to a shorter one)

Waiting periods considered:

• 30 days – best for employees who have not accumulated a lot of sick leave• 60 days – wipes out a lot of sick leave , many local employers offer this option• 90 days – wipes out a lot of sick leave , many local employers offer this option• 180 days – 8-10 year’s worth of sick leave, >1040 hour waiting period (discard this option)• Note: 176 hours = 22 days• Note: through HR Design collaboration process, some employees have expressed interest in a

waiting period < 30 days (additional premium); could be used for maternity leave?

Shorten 1040-hour waiting period to ~3 years’ worth of sick leave

Pros Cons

• more realistic (what employees actually have)[classified employees: [130 hrs x 8 yrs = 1040 hrs][unclassified employees: 96 hrs x 10 yrs = 960 hrs]

• employees with chronic medical conditions wouldlose less $ for SHICC conversion at a point whenhealth care is most needed (may never be able toaccumulate as much sick leave as an employee ingood health, need health care support more)

• impact – could increase cost

Proposals:• 30 days or ½ sick leave• 30 days or 360 sick leave hours (earnings over 3 years) [this is 1/3 current number of hours]

Employer contribution (should be consistent for all employees)...

...at 6 months

• visible support for employees• consistent, Pareto + (doesn’t initiate a change that benefits some employees at cost to others)• widely used, offered state-wide, private employers use as well

...at 12 months

• consistent, Pareto - (change doesn’t help unclassified employees, makes ICI benefit lessattractive to current classified employees – fewer would elect coverage, not attractive to paymore longer)

...100% employer paid?

40

Appendix 20: WRS Retirement

Decision Point:Should we recommend an “Opt Out” option for WRS retirement?(Vote: No – 1G, 9R)

Reservation:

• “I feel strongly about opt-out. It is a values question. The employer is putting a value onretirement and forcing employees participate in the program. Some people do not value savingfor retirement. Father died at 42 – did not need retirement money.”

Discussion:

• new premium contribution required by Act 10 a significant hardship for many employees and abig issue: employee’s bargained for the employer level of contribution in lieu of salary increasesand what was negotiated in good faith has been taken away

• costs beyond current employees: potential applicants see that value of benefits here has declined,with potential for further erosion, UW may develop a reputation for political instability, lessvaluable benefits than peers

• ample anecdotal evidence that with effective 8+ % reduction in take-home pay, some employeessimply cannot afford new costs – immediate costs (rent, food) are first priorities and saving,retirement are desirable but not possible (“I can’t afford to work here any more”)\

• some employees would like an “opt-out” option

concerns:

– if we recommend a hardship exclusion, defining hardship– if we recommend a lower contribution rate for some, cost (WRS has to be administered in

the same way for all employees – if low-income employees contribute < 5.9%, universityadministration, divisions, or departments would have to make up the difference)

– if departments bear cost, would hit some harder than others– high cost item– some team members see this as a fairness issue (same issue raised in health care discussion)

• conservative legislature wants opt-out recommendation to further reduce state’s costs

concerns:

– WRS retirement system works because of large contributor base – reduction of base wouldeventually endanger the system

– don’t want to make a recommendation on behalf of employees that provides fodder forprivatizing WRS

– recent legislation introduced in the absence of a completed study– COWS study (& others) praise health of WRS system – one of the best

• should we consider an early retirement option/incentive?

concern:

– these programs usually target high wage earners, used for downsizing (induce earlyretirements and then don’t rehire) – runs counter to our objectives and intent of HR Design

• most employees who have commented on WRS Retirement want to see the system and fixedbenefit annuity protected

• when employees become eligible for Medicare, health insurance becomes supplemental at lowercost

Question:

How many employees participate in 403b & 457 investment options?

41

Source:

“The Wisconsin Retirement System is One of the Healthiest in the Country.”Center on Wisconsin Strategy (March 2011)www.cows.org/pdf/bp-wrs.pdf

Appendix 21: Tuition Reimbursement(We are continuing to work on recommendations related to Tuition Reimbursement, in partnership withthe Employee Development and Workplace Flexibility teams.)

Decision Points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer tuition reimbursement?

(Vote 1: Yes – 5G, 1Y)

Reservations:

• university should have development plans for employees – education is our mission andemployee development should be the norm, not an individual benefit

(Vote 2: Yes – unanimous)

2. Should all employees receive tuition reimbursement under the same policy/plan?(Vote: Yes – unanimous)

Discussion:

• currently access varies depending on the department/unit and supervisor – need uniform, readyaccess (fund centrally rather than at department level)

• all employees should have a training and development plan that includes/provides funding forcontinuing education (tuition, technical courses, continuing education, etc.) – provide a baseamount of funding/FTE when a plan is in place

• supervisor should not be able to veto/reject a career development plan that is in place, but thereneeds to be mutual agreement in scheduling

Questions:

• Do departments actually transfer dollars to the college?• Could we develop a Tuition Assistance program that would serve both employees and their

dependents?• Should employees be required to take courses that are job related? Allowed to take courses

aligned with a career plan (planning for related or different future job)? Allowed to take coursesrelated to personal interests (not job-related)?[Employee Development team will consider these questions.]

• What level of reimbursement is appropriate?

Options discussed:

– reimburse 100% for passed course vs. reimbursement level on grade attained: (“B or better”100%, “C” 80%, D-F 0%)

– reimburse for a specific number of credits each semester or each year (3-6 credits?)– add a retention clause: ie, for every credit earned, employee must remain employed for X

days/weeks/months or reimburse costs (faculty sabbatical a possible model)– add a non-compete clause

42

• When would an employee be eligible?

– after passing probationary/evaluation period

• Should it be possible to audit a course (no grade, no cost)?• Should it be possible to take courses toward a degree (supported in whole or in part)?

Sources:

An Analysis of Tuition Assistance Benefits Available to UW System Employees Zimm, Nicole (Policy Analyst). UWSA Office of Human Resources & Workforce Diversity(23 February 2009): www.wisconsin.edu/bor/agenda/2010/october.pdf (p. 72-88)

An Analysis of the Competitiveness of the Benefits Package Available to UW-System EmployeesZimm, Nicole (Policy Analyst). UWSA Office of Human Resources (4 November 2008)

Hebel, Sara. “Illinois Bill Would End a Prized Perk: Tuition Discounts for Faculty and Staff.”Chronicle of Higher Education: News (7 March 2012):http://chronicle.com/article/Illinois-Bill-Would-End-a/131098/

Appendix 22: Tuition Remission (New Benefit)(We are continuing to work on recommendations related to Tuition Remission.)

Decision Points:

1. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer tuition remission for an employee’s spouse/partner?

2. Should the University of Wisconsin-Madison offer tuition remission for an employee’s dependentchild or children?

Tuition remission for family members:

Pros Cons

• more competitive with peers• help retain employees (lower turn-over leads to

cost savings)• help low-wage employees with access to an

education for their children• use as a recruitment tool• current employees very interested in this benefit

(Benefit Services receives a lot of questions fromemployees about tuition remission)

• financial cost• political controversy (huge political cost: we are a

public university and people in the state may thinkit is unfair that dependents of UW employees getfinancial assistance; danger of creating(mis)perception of an “inside edge” in admissions)

• widen, rather than reduce, gap between “haves”and “have nots” (many employees are highlyeducated – secondary & post-secondary degrees –and tuition remission could further privilege aneducated class)

Questions:

• Is tuition remission cost neutral? What would be the actual cost(s) to the university?• As the university moves toward cost-recovery models (differential tuition, Educational

Innovation), will schools and colleges focus even more on receiving tuition money?• Could we create a scholarship program for families of employees?

Possible features:

– student must be admitted through the regular admission process– need-based scholarships (part or all?)

43

– pay 30-50% of tuition costs (Tuition Assistance program vs. full Tuition Remission)– eligibility (employee must have worked at the university for > 10 years, > 75% FTE)– caps (# of credits covered, # of years covered, # of dependents covered)

Other ideas:Convert value of benefits to pay for tuition? Employee could pay a benefit payment where the employeecan choose to put the money toward tuition rather than another benefit.Employee convert value of vacation time to pay for tuition of dependentOffer scholarships to students of employees who are admitted - $500/ semester

Sources:

An Analysis of Tuition Assistance Benefits Available to UW System Employees Zimm, Nicole (Policy Analyst). UWSA Office of Human Resources & Workforce Diversity(23 February 2009): www.wisconsin.edu/bor/agenda/2010/october.pdf (p. 72-88)

Appendix 23: Current Salary & Benefits for Trades Employees(We are continuing to work on recommendations related to leave and other benefits for Trades employees.)

Salary:

The salary of a Trades employee is related to the adjusted state prevailing rate.

The prevailing rate is based on the gross area building construction prevailing craft rate (base rate)plus employer-paid employee benefits, including industry promotion and training funds.

This total gross amount is then adjusted, based on a reduction formula calculation that identifies thevalue of state-provided employee benefits, to arrive at the effective value of the adjusted stateprevailing rate. The adjustment for state-provided employee benefits from the last bargainingcontract is seventeen and two-tenths of one percent (17.2%) of the gross area building constructionprevailing craft rate (base plus fringes), plus the cost of the optional health insurance.

Personal Holidays:Trades employees do not receive any personal holidays.

Vacation:Individual wages are adjusted annually, according to the rate of vacation option the employee selects:

< 20 years of service: 84 hrs or 124 hrs (2-3 weeks of vacation)

> 20 years of service: 100 hrs, 140 hrs or 180 hrs (up to 4 ½ weeks)

Sick Leave:Like other classified employees, Trades employees earn sick leave at the rate of 5 hours per pay period.

5 x 26 biweekly pay periods = 130 hours (16.25 days)/year

Health Insurance:Trades employees have the option to participate in State Group Health Insurance, paying the fullpremium (no employer contribution).

Other Insurance:Trades employees have the option to participate in other insurances, paying the same rate as otheremployees for insurances selected.

These salary and benefit practices were established in the 1970’s.