scholarly journals What Can We Learn About Automatic Enrollment Into Pensions From Small Employers?

2021 ◽  
pp. 000-000
Author(s):  
Jonathan Cribb ◽  
Carl Emmerson
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Maloney ◽  
Alma McCarthy

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse how firm size impacts pension workforce coverage with a particular focus on automatic enrolment (AE) to pension plans in small organisations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper examines the alignment of government AE interests with those of small employers, their employees and pension providers to better understand how firm size impacts pension workforce coverage.FindingsThe alignment of interests between stakeholders (government, pension providers, employers and employees) differs between large and small organisations, and empirical findings from large organisations cannot be assumed to apply in small organisations.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper calls attention to the need for future empirical research and identifies a number of research questions for further analysis to examine how AE impacts pension participation in small organisations and advance the field.Originality/valueThe policy of automatically enroling employees into occupational pension plans, recently legislated for all eligible workers in the UK and under consideration in the USA and Ireland, was developed from research conducted in a small number of large organisations. Pension coverage is particularly inadequate for the large number of employees working in small organisations (1–49 employees). However, little research attention has been focussed on pensions in small organisations with pension policy makers assuming that legislated AE will work as effectively in small organisations as it did in large organisations. This paper addresses this gap in the field.


2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Pesko ◽  
Jaskaran Bains ◽  
(Johanna) Catherine Maclean ◽  
Benjamin Lê Cook

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 214-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Lennon ◽  
Dalvery Bakewell ◽  
Earnestine Willis

Background: Workplace lactation support has become increasingly important because returning to work is associated with discontinuing breastfeeding and women in the workforce are increasing. Research aim: This study examined workplace lactation support among Milwaukee County businesses 5 years after implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s Break Time for Nursing Mothers provision. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of Milwaukee County businesses was conducted in the summer of 2015 that inquired about workplace policies, lactation spaces, and other lactation resources offered. Business supports were stratified based on employer sizes: large (> 500 employees), medium (50-499 employees), and small (20-49 employees). A lactation amenity score was calculated for each business based on lactation resources available. Results: Three hundred surveys were distributed and 71 businesses voluntarily completed the survey. Small employers were excluded from statistical analysis due to fewer responses ( n = 8). Overall, 87.3% ( n = 55) of respondents reported providing access to a multiuser space for lactation and 65.1% ( n = 41) reported providing a designated lactation space. Large employers ( n = 30) were more likely than medium employers ( n = 33) to provide a designated lactation space for breastfeeding or expressing (86.7% vs. 45.5%, p < .001). Large employers’ mean amenity score was significantly higher than that of medium employers (3.37 vs. 2.57, p = .014), and they were also more likely to offer additional supports including access to a lactation consultant, classes, and materials (46.7% vs. 12.1%, p < .01). Conclusion: Large employers provide more lactation support than medium employers in Milwaukee County. All employers, regardless of size, need to increase additional lactation support for women in the workplace.


1997 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 103-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon R. Gabel ◽  
Paul B. Ginsburg ◽  
Kelly A. Hunt

2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (7) ◽  
pp. 3214-3248 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kate Bundorf ◽  
Jonathan Levin ◽  
Neale Mahoney

Premiums in health insurance markets frequently do not reflect individual differences in costs, either because consumers have private information or because prices are not risk rated. This creates inefficiencies when consumers self-select into plans. We develop a simple econometric model to study this problem and estimate it using data on small employers. We find a welfare loss of 2–11 percent of coverage costs compared to what is feasible with risk rating. Only about one-quarter of this is due to inefficiently chosen uniform contribution levels. We also investigate the reclassification risk created by risk rating individual incremental premiums, finding only a modest welfare cost. (JEL G22, I13, I18)


1948 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 99A-104A
Author(s):  
W. Von Pechmann

1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 149-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Morrisey ◽  
Gail A. Jensen ◽  
Robert J. Morlock

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document