Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

Understanding Insurance Coverage for Traveling Employees

Posted on by

BOSTON—The odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 9.3 million. The odds of getting sick while traveling: 1 in 2. But both should concern companies sending their employees around the world for business, panelists Kathleen Ellis of CNA International, Erin Wilk of Facebook and Andrew Miller of International SOS said at a RIMS 2019 panel titled “Is Insurance Enough When Employees Travel?”

The answer to this question, the panel agreed, was emphatically “no.” But, as Ellis and Wilk noted, insurance coverage is an important part of the equation for many of the biggest things that do go wrong. Even though the risk of catastrophic incident is minor compared to seemingly mundane travel concerns like weather and petty theft, companies should still prepare for the worst in advance.

This is true whether employees are going to common destinations within the United States traditionally thought of as safe or to less familiar places.

buy zydena online https://ozgurmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/zydena.html no prescription pharmacy

It is also true, Wilk said, whether the employee is an experienced traveler (who can be over-confident) or a novice (who can over-prepare and miss warning signs around them).

The panelists repeatedly stressed that companies should approach travel risk with protecting employees as their priority. Not only do companies have a “duty of care” (a legal responsibility to mitigate the risks traveling employees face), but they also need to be cognizant of the “standard of care” and “duty of loyalty.” Standard of care is the industry standard for employees’ travel risk protection, and companies’ obligation to meet that standard.

Duty of loyalty is the employees’ responsibility to abide by the safety measures the company has put in place. As recently discussed in Risk Management, this is largely on the employee, but the panel noted that employers also have a critical role to play in creating a culture that enables and encourages their people to take the necessary steps to protect themselves while traveling. As Wilk said, “Policy is a piece of paper. Employee practice is what actually matters.”

When it comes to insurance, companies should make sure they are covered, but not over-covered. For example, Miller discussed cases in which companies’ benefits, HR and legal department have all purchased travel coverage without communicating their purchases to the other departments. Businesses may also be unfamiliar with the coverage they have and pay to remediate travel problems themselves when their insurance policies would actually cover those issues.

Key insurance options include:

  • Foreign voluntary workers compensation, which covers workers traveling on business in a way similar to traditional workers’ comp, paying for disease, or repatriation or evacuation
  • Business travel accidental death and dismemberment coverage, which works like life insurance and covers both work-related and non-work-related incidents, and is an option for covering employees’ spouses and dependents
  • Kidnap and ransom coverage, which provides pre-trip support, crisis management services during an incident, and reimburses for ransoms paid for kidnapping extortion, wrongful detention and hijacking
  • Expatriate medical, which is an option for employees who are traveling long-term, and
  • Defense base act coverage, which handles government contractors overseas at embassies and military bases

The panelists also emphasized that travel risk not only endangers employees’ well-being, but also the company’s bottom line. If an employee gets sick while traveling for business, for example, the company’s investment in the trip can be wasted. Additionally, traveling employees who feel unsafe or unprepared for the risks they are facing feel less loyal to their company, and can also be distracted, potentially derailing the important business they are traveling to conduct. The panel urged that pre-trip training and a thorough understanding of the company’s existing coverage are the best ways to mitigate these risks and help employees succeed when traveling for work.

Q&A: 2019 Risk Manager of the Year Luke Figora

Posted on by

Luke Figora, senior associate vice president and chief risk and compliance officer at Northwestern University, was named the RIMS 2019 Risk Manager of the Year today.

With annual revenues of approximately .

5 billion (reported in 2018) and nearly $700 million in sponsored research annually, Northwestern is among the country’s leading research universities. Figora has risen quickly through the ranks at Northwestern, where his enterprise risk management (ERM) framework has elevated its risk culture across three campuses—two in Illinois and one in Qatar.

Figora spoke with Risk Management Monitor about his experience as one of the youngest stakeholders among Northwestern’s leadership, his process of customizing an ERM matrix and his reaction to the recent college admissions scandal.

Risk Management Monitor: You and your department created an ERM matrix in the past year that united Northwestern’s compliance owners and that may even set a precedent in higher education. What went into its creation?

Luke Figora: We spent a lot of time defining risk appetite statements and tried to make our program a little more outcome-based and actually show how we’re moving the needle on uncertain key risks for Northwestern. And we avoided spending too much time aligning perfectly to one of the ERM frameworks like COSO or ISO. So I think if someone looked at our program from the outside, it might not check all the boxes from a typical model perspective, but it’s driving action here at Northwestern and it seems to be the right level for engagement with our stakeholders.

I think one of the biggest challenges for ERM at Northwestern—and maybe this is true across the industry—is that we don’t necessarily have one strategy right now. We have some pillars and values that Northwestern follows, but we’re ultimately a very decentralized institution that has a number of schools, and a number of units in each one of those have slightly different objectives and goals.

RMM: It seems that there is a degree of transparency, but not full transparency.

LF: Right. For example, athletics and the School of Medicine have very different risk profiles and neither one of them should know the other’s risks or operations. And it would be hard for someone in athletics to speak about the risks of animal research within the School of Medicine. I think that’s where our risk office plays a role in right-sizing the expectations and taking the feedback from all the units, but trying to do some triage through that.

RMM: Many of your colleagues are several years your senior—how has that impacted your work?

LF: I am probably the youngest person on the leadership team across the institution, but it has probably been beneficial. I have tried to bring different ideas and update the ways in which we think about risk. I’m not jaded by the insurance industry, and I think people are receptive because of that.

RMM: Since arriving at Northwestern nearly five years ago, you moved up the ranks relatively quickly, although you’ve maintained that was not your goal. How would you advise young risk professionals as they get their feet wet?  

LF: I think all of us at early stages in our careers can’t wait to be a manager and want that vertical growth and the chance to lead a team, but the bigger driving factor for me has been horizontal growth and expanding the portfolio. After that, I believe the other opportunities will come. That is a belief I try to hammer home in my work and when I make industry presentations.

RMM: The college admissions system is a hot topic due to the major scandal that broke in March. How might that have affected where the admissions process is on Northwestern’s risk register?

LF: Last year at this time, fraud in the admissions cycle wouldn’t have been one of our top 10 enterprise risks. But when things like this break, there is a tendency to go into reaction mode and examine whether we have similar issues. I always try to keep people level-headed and remind them that just because this hit doesn’t mean it moves to number one on our crisis management list for the year. It is worth doing a deep dive into the question or topic that’s in the news, but whenever scandals hit, I think we’ve tried to approach them with a rational view.

RMM: It sounds like the knee-jerk reaction is to go into crisis communication mode, even though it’s not your crisis.

LF: We know we’re going to get questions from our trustees, so there’s an initial all-hands-on-deck mentality. You have to make sure you have talking points that outline how we’ve thought about it because we know we’re going to get questions from the media. We do focus on crisis communications, but it becomes more about knowing if we have the right controls that could protect the institution from something like this happening to us.  

Figora was also the special guest on this week’s RIMScast, which you can download here.

Pregnancy-Tracking Apps Pose Challenges for Employees

Posted on by

As more companies embrace health-tracking apps to encourage healthier habits and drive down healthcare costs, some employees are becoming uncomfortable with the amount and types of data the apps are sharing with their employers, insurance companies and others.

This is especially true for apps that track fertility and pregnancy. As the Washington Post recently reported, these apps collect huge amounts of personal health information, and are not always transparent about who has access to it. The digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation even published a paper in 2017 titled The Pregnancy Panopticon detailing the security and privacy issues with pregnancy-tracking apps. Employers can also pay extra for some pregnancy-tracking apps to provide them with employees’ health information directly, ostensibly to reduce health care spending and improve the company’s ability to plan for the future.

Given the documented workplace discrimination against women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, users may worry that the information they provide the apps could impact employment options or treatment by colleagues and managers. Pregnancy-tracking apps also collect infinitely more personal data than traditional health-tracking apps and devices like step-counters or heart rate monitors. This can include everything from what medications users are taking and when they are having sex or their periods, to the color of their cervical fluid and their doctors’ names and locations.

Citing discomfort with providing this level of information, the Washington Post reported some women have even taken steps to obscure their personal details when using the apps, for fear that their employers, insurance companies, health care providers or third parties may have access to their data and could use it against them in some way. They use fake names or fake email addresses and only give the apps select details or provide inaccurate information. Fearing the invasion of their newborn children’s privacy, some have even chosen not to report their children’s births on the apps, despite this impacting their ability to track their own health and that of their newborn on the app.

Like many other apps or online platforms, it may be difficult to parse out exactly what health-tracking apps are doing with users’ information and what you are agreeing to when you sign up. When employers get involved, these issues get even more difficult. By providing incentives—either in the form of tangible rewards like cash or gift cards, or intangible benefits such as looking like a team player—companies may actually discourage their employees from looking closely at the apps’ terms of use or other key details they need to fully inform the choice to participate or not.

While getting more information about employees’ health may offer ways to improve a workforce’s health and reduce treatment costs, companies encouraging their employees to use these apps are also opening themselves up to risks. As noted above, apps are not always transparent as to what information they are storing and how. Depending on the apps’ security practices, employees’ data may be susceptible to hacking or other misuse by third-party or malicious actors. For example, in January 2018, fitness-tracking app Strava released a map of users’ activity that inadvertently exposed sensitive information about military personnel’s locations, including in war zones. Given the kinds of personal details that some apps collect, health app data could also put users at risk of identity theft or other types of fraud.

Tracking, storing, and using workers’ personal health information also exposes employers and insurance companies to a number of risks and liabilities, including third-party data storage vulnerabilities and data breaches. This is especially important in places governed by stringent online data protection regulations like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In addition to the risks of reputation damage, companies that are breached or otherwise expose employees’ personal information could face significant regulatory fines.

People using health-tracking apps, especially fertility-related apps, should weigh the costs and benefits of disclosing personal information against how apps and others are using this information. Companies who encourage their employees to use these apps and collect their personal health details should also be as transparent as possible about how they are using it, and implement measures to protect workers’ personal data to the fullest extent possible and ensure that managers are not using this data to discriminate against workers.

Are Your Employees Preparing to Quit?

Posted on by

A new study shows that changes in employee engagement and loyalty can indicate whether an employee is planning to leave, and these changes may start up to 9 months before an employee quits. In The 9-Month Warning: Identifying Quitters Before It’s Too Late, workplace data analytics firm Peakon and its research arm Heartbeat drew on polling of 30 million employees in 125 countries to help employers spot the signs and mitigate resulting risks.

Turnover and recruitment to replace departing employees is costly for companies. The hiring process can take weeks or months, and includes both direct and indirect costs from paying recruiters to staff time and lost productivity. Training new staff also takes time and money, and losing institutional knowledge when an employee departs can slow operations or, in a worst-case scenario, can even compromise client relationships or handicap major aspects of the company’s business. There can also be reputation costs, especially if the potential applicants see a stream of departures.

The study stresses that decreasing employee engagement—which it defines as “the level of personal investment an employee has in their work”—is an important indicator of imminent departure. Nine months before quitting, researchers found an employee’s engagement and loyalty to the company drop significantly. The study measured engagement by asking respondents, “How likely is it you would recommend [Company Name] as a place to work?” and measured loyalty by asking, “If you were offered the same job at another organization, how likely is it that you would stay with [Company Name]?”

Various factors contribute to a decline in engagement and loyalty, including in some counterintuitive ways. The study shows that respondents considered unchallenging work more of a reason to leave than having too much work. When their work is not challenging, employees’ sense of accomplishment begins to significantly drop 9 months before quitting, while their feelings about their workload stay relatively steady until their departure.

online pharmacy antabuse with best prices today in the USA

Additionally, the study found that communication and relationships between managers and employees may be more important for retention than salary level or other factors. Employees are more likely to leave if they feel unable to discuss their pay with their manager than if they feel underpaid, and their manager’s support is more important than relationships with colleagues, feeling at home at an organization or believing in its mission.

When employees believe that they do not have opportunities for growth, they also become more likely to leave. This includes personal growth, advancement within the company and whether their managers encourage and provide pathways for growth.

online pharmacy tobrex with best prices today in the USA

“When we feel our role is helping us develop into our best self, it can have an incredibly powerful impact on employee engagement,” the study explained.

Companies can address these factors in a number of ways, including offering training programs and growth opportunities, starting an employee recognition program, implementing more frequent or more in-depth employee engagement surveys and providing additional training for managers. One way companies can incentivize these steps is by tying executive pay and other rewards not just to financial performance, but also to retention.

By ensuring that employees feel challenged in their work, feel comfortable communicating with their managers and providing opportunities for recognition and growth, employers may reduce staff attrition and save on costly recruitment and training.

online pharmacy rybelsus with best prices today in the USA