Category Archives: labor unions

What Now for Labor Relations?

Trump_by_Gage_SkidmoreUnions have had a pretty good ride during the Obama administration. That’s about to change, and it’s not hard to imagine a new age of labor strife dawning as Donald Trump settles into the Oval Office.

The Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board under Obama have favored rules that ease union organizing efforts. The agencies also have applied many standards that typically apply in a collective-bargaining relationship to nonunion workplaces as well.

Trump, however, is expected to embrace a traditional GOP pro-business stance. That makes it likely his agencies will be less friendly to unions. So, too, for federal judges and justices that ultimately rule on many tough legal issues involving labor. Trump also supports national right-to-work legislation. Does all that mean we’re headed for a more antagonistic relationship between management and labor generally?

Not necessarily. The Trump-labor relationship is complicated.

At least one union leader is talking tough. “We must pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and stand strong,” says Matt Loeb, president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which represents workers in the movie industry. “We must demonstrate solidarity in an unprecedented way by locking arms as Brothers and Sisters.”

Of course, union members did not vote universally for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton; exit-poll data suggest over 40 percent of the union vote went to her opponent.  Indeed, labor unions are as diverse as the industries they organize. At least one union leader welcomed the election of Trump, hailing him as a potential savior of jobs: Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers.

“Working families in our nation’s coalfields are very concerned about their future, and they made their voices heard loud and clear yesterday,” Roberts said. “President-elect Trump has spoken many times about addressing the serious economic disaster that is affecting large areas of Appalachia and other coal-producing areas of our country by putting coal miners back to work. No one is more interested in doing just exactly that than the UMWA.”

And Dennis Williams, president of the United Auto Workers, on Thursday also emphasized areas of agreement with the incoming president, according to Automotive News.

“Obviously, we’ll work with him on NAFTA. We agree that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated or ended,” Williams said. “We are prepared to work with him on a jobs bill and an infrastructure bill.”

There you have it: Part of Trump’s agenda aligns with union interests, and part does not. We’ll soon see what that means for the climate of labor relations in America.

NLRB: Grad Students Are Employees

In a 3-1 decision, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that graduate students working as research and teaching assistants at Columbia University are statutory employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

As the Washington Post reports, the ruling overturns a 2004 Brown University decision, in which the NLRB said graduate students engaging in collective bargaining “would undermine the nature and purpose of graduate education.”

The decision, which clears the way for these grad students to join or form unions, opens the door “to the full panoply of rights provided under collective bargains, and the effect will change the relationship between private sector universities and their students,” Joseph Ambush, a Boston-based attorney who filed the brief on behalf of the schools involved in this case (and who represented Brown in 2004), told the Post.

Philip Miscimarra, who offered the lone dissenting opinion in the Columbia case, voiced concerns that allowing students to collectively bargain could “wreak havoc” on their education, given the potential for strikes and lockouts, according to the paper.

That’s not all the decision could do.

Earning recognition as employees means that grad students working in teaching or research capacities “can bargain for larger stipends and better health coverage, especially if they have children,” according to the Post. “It also means they can get basic protections, such as unpaid leave.”

The ruling “could be huge,” says Laura Hung, a doctoral candidate in anthropology at American University. Hung, now working as an adjunct professor, told the Post that she’s making roughly the same salary (around $19,000) that she earned as a teaching and research assistant in her most recent academic year.

“The vast majority of my colleagues are swimming in student debt,” notes Hung, adding that her wages are “barely enough” to cover her $1,000 rent each month, and “certainly not enough” to pay for the health insurance offered by the university.

“The way things are right now obligates students to take out large amounts of debt to eat and live,” continues Hung. “There are students who are not going to find jobs that pay enough to pay that back.”

This struggle is real among young workers outside of academia as well. Pay attention, employers.

As HRE notes in an upcoming feature in our Sept. 2 print issue, the number of recent grads buckling under the weight of massive student loan debt is only growing. Recent data from the Plan Sponsor Council of America, for instance, finds 69 percent of students graduating college in 2011 and 2012 borrowed money to finance their educations, compared to 49 percent of 1992 and 1993 college graduates.

Some employers are recognizing this trend, and are responding. As we report in the aforementioned Sept. 2 piece, for example, Nvidia Corp. is helping its youngest workers start off their careers on the right financial foot.

Designed to help employees repay student loans up to $30,000, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based technology company’s Student Loan Repayment program is open to all full- or part-time employees who have graduated within the past three years and are working 20 or more hours per week and provides monthly reimbursement up to $500 or the worker’s monthly payment amount, whichever is less.

Applicable to various types of loans—Federal Perkins loans, private student loans and subsidized Stafford loans, for instance—the repayment program also helps employees who go back to school for an advanced degree.

Beau Davidson, vice president of human resources at Nvidia, describes the effort as a “bridge program” geared toward helping recent grads transition into the working world.

“This kind of assistance might help them get started in an apartment, put a down payment on a car, and get themselves situated and ready to work,” says Davidson. “It’s one less stressor to worry about.”

Orchestras Out of Tune with NLRB

dv1970026Anyone who’s been watching employment law the last few years knows that the National Labor Relations Board has been steadily expanding the boundaries of union activity. One realm where this is happening is a place many probably don’t see as a workplace at all: the stage of a symphony hall.

In a pair of recent decisions, the NLRB has ruled that orchestra musicians are employees entitled to unionize even if they perform just a few times a year in concerts that last only a couple of hours. Even though they are free to take a gig or not. Even though they use their own instruments.

We’ll get to the reasoning in a minute. But first, a disclosure: I’m an amateur French horn player and in my college days made a meager living by playing with semi-professional orchestras in the San Francisco Bay Area. It wasn’t much money — a few hundred dollars for several rehearsals and a concert or two — but the gigs added up and my standard of living was low at the time. I was, for several years, a card-carrying member of the American Federation of Musicians Local No.6, AFL-CIO.

Big professional orchestras across the country — anything from the New York Philharmonic, say, to the San Antonio Symphony in Texas — hire musicians as full-time employees with contracts that provide often healthy six-figure salaries with benefits. But even many smaller orchestras, with far smaller budgets, commonly have union contracts as well — even if their musicians make peanuts.

While performing is typically a hobby for musicians in a small-city orchestra, some players can make a living by cobbling together work with many local orchestras and teaching. Plus, there’s a tradition of unionization in live music that dates back to the days before television. So it’s more complicated than you might think.

While unionization is a given in many markets, some orchestras have resisted it. But they’re not getting a sympathetic hearing from the NLRB under the current administration.

In April the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a board ruling against the Lancaster Symphony Orchestra, based in south-central Pennsylvania. The board ruling held that the orchestra’s musicians were not independent contractors, but employees entitled to union representation. With similar reasoning, an NLRB regional director in late July ruled in favor of musicians who perform with a Boston theater company.

Those cases are aren’t alone. Along with its original ruling in the Lancaster case in 2011, for example, the NLRB issued similar findings for orchestras in Cape Cod, Mass. and Plano, Texas.

The board majority’s reasoning sheds an interesting light on the usual test of whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. In the 2011 Lancaster ruling, the board noted that the musicians have a choice whether to perform on a given concert set or not, which weighs in favor of independent contractor status.

But that is outweighed, the board majority found, by other factors favoring employee status. The musicians have no control over their working conditions — from what they wear to how they behave on stage — and in many other respects are subject to strict control by the conductor.

In a minority opinion, dissenting then-member Mark Hayes weighed the balance differently. He argued that many factors, including the musicians’ ability to skip a concert set to take other work or for any other reason, made them independent contractors.

Another issue is hovering quietly in the background: Most small-city orchestras are barely able to make ends meet. I remember a conversation with a conductor backstage before a performance one night. All it would take for the orchestra to go bankrupt, she said, would be for the musicians to decide they wanted just a little more money.

NLRB May Raise Bar For Employers to Oust Unions

Companies seeking to oust a union that’s no longer supported by most workers could soon face a new obstacle.

Currently an employer may stop dealing with a union when a contract comes up for renewal. Management just needs objective evidence – typically a petition – that a majority of workers no longer support it. But the NLRB’s top lawyer wants to raise the bar companies must cross to withdraw recognition.

In a May 9 memo, National Labor Relations Board general counsel Richard F. Griffin Jr. instructs the agency’s regional directors to raise a new argument when companies unilaterally withdraw union recognition. He believes employers should first seek a formal decertification election — and continue to deal with the union until winning the ballot battle.

In the memo, GBallot-boxriffin contends this would be better for companies by eliminating uncertainty and lessening delay and litigation.

The current board law “has created peril for employers in determining whether there has been an actual loss of majority support for the incumbent union, has resulted in years of litigation over difficult evidentiary issues, and in a number of cases has delayed employees’ ability to effectuate their choice as to representation.”

The new standard, he contends, “will benefit employers, employees, and unions alike by fairly and efficiently determining whether a majority representative has lost majority support.”

But management-side labor lawyers generally see this as a move to strengthen the hand of unions by forcing companies to continue bargaining with a union that may no longer have much support.

And the NLRB could go along with Griffin, says one expert.

As long as three of the five board members are Obama appointees, “I think there is probably a good chance … the board would be receptive to the general counsel’s argument here,” said labor attorney Steven M. Swirsky, a member of the firm at Epstein Becker & Green in New York.

The current practice was set by the board 15 years ago in a case involving Levitz Furniture Co. Now Griffin is instructing regional offices to disregard that standard and issue unfair-labor-practice complaints in future cases where employers unilaterally withdraw recognition and unions file charges, Swirsky says. That would eventually bring his argument for raising the standard in front of the board for a ruling.

Over the last 10 years, employers have won 70 percent of employer-requested decertification elections, NLRB records show. But requiring those elections often will mean a lengthy series of labor complaints and appeals by the union – even if few workers support it – before companies can withdraw recognition, Swirsky says. And while that’s dragging on, a company is stuck.

“You freeze the status quo in many respects,” he says. “That can be harmful for employees, too.”

Employee Handbooks Under Scrutiny

OK, pop quiz: What’s the difference between these two employee-handbook policies?

  1. “Be respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”
  2. “Each employee is expected to work in a cooperative manner with management/supervision, co-workers, customers and vendors.”

One, according to the National Labor Relations Board, is legal. The other is not. (I’ll tell you which was which in a minute.)

Don’t fret if you have trouble seeing the difference. That’s why we have lawyers. And that’s why there’s plenty of work for them as the ThinkstockPhotos-517631808NLRB cracks down on employee-handbook language — including provisions that once were standard — that it says is too broad.

In a series of rulings the agency has told companies to revise policies that infringe on rights of workers — unionized or not — to talk to each other about the company in person or through social media.

“Employers are really waking up to this,” says Lauri F. Rasnick, a member of the firm at Epstein Becker Green of New York. “For a long time, nonunionized employers didn’t give a lot of thought to NLRB decisions.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce contends the effort is part of an anti-employer crusade. In a highly critical December report titled “Theater of the Absurd: The NLRB Takes on the Employee Handbook,” the trade group argues that the agency “has undertaken a campaign to outlaw heretofore uncontroversial rules found in employee handbooks and in employers’ social media policies.”

Worse, according to the chamber: the NLRB’s guidance to employers often is contradictory, creating “a morass of confusion that leaves employers wondering just how they are to exercise effective control over their workplaces.”

Rasnick agrees. “I do think that’s part of the challenge for employers,” she says, noting that NLRB decisions aren’t always consistent. And they are continuing to evolve, with confidentiality provisions attracting more scrutiny in recent rulings, she says.

The latest headline came this month after an administrative law judge ruled that Quicken Loans and five related companies had illegal rules in its employee handbook, which it calls “The Big Book.” (Despite the Quicken name, the companies are not owned by software company Intuit; they’re led by Dan Gilbert, majority owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers.)

To the untutored eye, many of the rules seem pretty standard stuff. An example: “Think before you Tweet. Or post, comment or pin. What you share can live forever. If it doesn’t belong on the front page of The New York Times, don’t put it online.”

The problem with this rule, wrote judge David I. Goldman in his April 7 ruling:  Although the policy doesn’t tell workers they can’t bad-mouth the company online, “an employee considering this suggestion would reasonably feel chilled by this rule from expressing negative (but protected) information” about the employer.

The companies are appealing the decision to the full board. But there’s little indication that the NLRB is letting up on the effort.

Back to our pop quiz. Of those two employee-handbook policies, the first (“be respectful”) is illegal, according to the NLRB’s general counsel. The second (“work in a cooperative manner”) is OK.

The problem is in telling workers they must be “respectful” to management, as well as customers and others, wrote Richard F. Griffin Jr. in a memo last year. An employee might reasonably see that as a ban on complaining about the company, he wrote.

The second example is legal, Griffin wrote. “Employees would reasonably understand that it is stating the employer’s legitimate expectation that employees work together in an atmosphere of civility.”

Supreme Court Rejects Union-Fees Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court just rejected a legal attack on a vital source of funds for organized labor, splitting 4-4 in a challenge that had appeared to be on the path to victory until Justice Antonin Scalia’s February death, according to Reuters.

The outcome in the case, titled Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, affirmed a lower-court ruling that allowed California to force non-union workers to pay fees to public-employee unions.

The decision left intact a 1977 legal precedent that allowed such fees, which add up to millions of dollars a year for unions.

The court’s action, the Reuters piece notes, came after a lawsuit brought by a group of non-union public school teachers from California who objected to paying fees to the California Teachers Association union. (A California law requires non-union workers to pay fees to public-sector unions representing workers such as police, firefighters and teachers to fund collective bargaining efforts.)

The decision means the status quo remains, with the unions able to collect fees from non-union workers.

“The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a political ploy to silence public employees like teachers, school bus drivers, cafeteria workers, higher education faculty and other educators to work together to shape their profession,” said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association.

About 5 million public-sector employees are subject to union contracts that include mandatory fee provisions, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which backed the non-union teachers.

Key Lessons from the Tyson Decision

ThinkstockPhotos-485982240I’m sure many of you have now read or heard about the Supreme Court’s Tyson vs. Bouaphakeo decision on Tuesday upholding a Court of Appeals decision in the Eighth Circuit,  which sides with Tyson workers at an Iowa pork-processing plant.

The employees’ main grievance was that they did not receive mandated overtime pay for time spent “donning and doffing” protective equipment.

In its attempt to reverse the judgment, lawyers representing Tyson took aim at the case’s class-action status, making two arguments. First, they argued the class should not have been certified because the method used to prove injury assumed each employee spent the same time donning and doffing protective gear. Second, they argued that certification was improper because the damages awarded to the class could be distributed to individuals who did not work any uncompensated overtime.

In delivering the majority opinion (6-2), however, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that …

“A representative or statistical sample, like all evidence, is a means to establish or defend against liability. Its permissibility turns not on the form a proceeding takes—be it a class or individual action—but on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the relevant cause of action.”

In this instance, Kennedy said, the court’s holding is in accord with the 2011 Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision, which supported the blocking of a class-action against the retailer.

Yesterday, I asked Patrick Bannon, a partner in the Boston office of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, to share his assessment of the Tyson decision.

It’s pretty narrow, as SCOTUS decisions go, he said, because it’s largely based on the fact that it accepted a study by an expert hired by the plaintiff as valid evidence, but it didn’t really look at the particulars of the study. “They assumed,” he said, “that it was valid because the defendant hadn’t challenged the study. In a case in which an employer challenges a study with shaky statistics and not good evidence, the outcome could have been quite different.

“If there’s a cautionary tale here for employment attorneys,” Bannon said, it’s be careful of plaintiff lawyers bearing statistics.

Asked if HR leaders should be doing anything differently in light of the decision, Bannon noted that it does raise the question as to whether employers should be tracking donning and doffing time, even if it’s time employees don’t need to be paid for. “That’s a question HR folks should at least be thinking about,” he said. “It’s not always right for every workplace to try to measure tasks that you don’t think are really work, but if it turns out that it really is work and you were wrong about it, then you start down the road that Tyson Foods was on.

“If you’re an employer with a lot of employees who are all doing a repetitive task every day—and if there’s a way to measure what they’re doing that’s not too intrusive or confusing—then I’d be thinking about it,” he said.

Other employment attorneys noted that the case took on additional importance because of its connection to the Wal-Mart ruling, in which the Court rejected the use of statistical evidence to provide a pattern of discrimination.

Seth Rafkin, a partner in the New York and San Diego offices of Cooley LLP, pointed out that …

“The key threshold at issue in the Tyson and Wal-Mart cases was whether the positions and work experiences of class members were sufficiently similar such that the statistical evidence based on [a] sample of class members could reasonably be relied on as representative of the experience of other class members. In the Wal-Mart case, the Court found that the positions and experience of class members was so diverse that the statistical evidence could not be relied on as representative of the class’ experience. In contrast, the class in the Tyson case all worked at the same facility, performed similar work and were subject to the same policy.”

NLRB Helping Nonunion Employees Protect Rights

Having followed and posted earlier about the Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille case — namely, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s 116040122 -- labor unionupholding of a National Labor Relations Board finding that posting and “liking” a criticism of Triple Play’s income-tax-withholding policies constitutes protected concerted activity —  this more recent post on LinkedIn caught my eye.

Especially its title: Why Union-Free Companies Should Be Very Concerned About This Particular Website … . For the record, here’s the actual site in question, coworker.org.

What also caught my eye was the fact that, according to the post (complete with an analysis by Fast Company worth reading), the NLRB has even dedicated a page on its own website explaining, for nonunion employees, what their rights are under the National Labor Relations Act. As that page states:

“The law we enforce gives employees the right to act together to try to improve their pay and working conditions, with or without a union. If employees are fired, suspended or otherwise penalized for taking part in protected group activity, the [NLRB] will fight to restore what was unlawfully taken away. These rights were written into the original 1935 [NLRA] and have been upheld in numerous decisions by appellate courts and by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

On the NLRB page, recent cases involving a range of industries and employees are highlighted on a map via pins that visitors to the site can hover over for summaries or — by clicking on the pins — full stories about the cases.

Workplacereport.com puts out this warning, that “as coworker.org garners more attention, it continues to grow; and, the more it grows, the more ability it has to do more than merely help nonunion employees with their nonunion issues.” It goes on:

“With coworker.org’s ability to collect data from any employee of any company who logs onto the site, it appears to be a ready-made tool for the co-founders’ former employer, the SEIU (or any other union, for that matter).”

Of course, as the website notes — similar to what many employment lawyers and workplace experts have said over the years — “one of the simplest strategies for any employer of any size to negate the effects coworker.org (or unions) might have on their company would be to identify and try to eliminate workplace issues before employees turn to the outside for change.”

But ask any of them, as well as your fellow HR practitioners, and it becomes apparent that anti-union proactivity is often easier to describe than carry out.

At the very least, Jeff Harrison, a Minneapolis-based Littler shareholder, tells me in this earlier post, “gather your bragging points now; conduct vulnerability assessments,” with special focus on employees being treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and with robust employee-appreciation programs … those catch phrases “you often find in union petitions.”

His parting shot back in that April post is worth repeating here:

“[Bottom line, look closely at your people issues.] Are your people treating your people right? [Because it’s those types of complaints — treatment ones — that] are almost always behind [employees being driven to unionize].”

All Eyes on Volkswagen’s Amnesty for Answers

465782341 -- volkswagen2It’ll be interesting to see what comes of Volkswagen’s move to offer amnesty to all its bargaining-unit employees in hopes of uncovering just who was/is behind its emissions-cheating scandal.

According to a letter that went out Thursday from Herbert Diess, chief executive of the division that produces Volkswagen brand cars, employees have until Nov. 30 to come forward with information about who was responsible for installing software in 11 million diesel vehicles that disguised nitrogen-oxide output.

The letter, reviewed and reported on by the New York Times, says “people who provided information would not be fired or face damage claims [but] the company could not shield employees from criminal charges.”

In other words, the amnesty isn’t really designed for the really bad guys, “but rather, for the midlevel people who may have, without even knowing it, some relevant information,” Mike Koehler, a law professor at Southern Illinois University, told the Times.

It’s also, according to another legal source for that story — Alexandra Wrange, president of Trace International in Annapolis, Md. — “a tacit admission … that the usual reporting channels have been ineffective.”

You might call it a kind of pulling-out-all-the-stops kind of move, above and beyond the more commonplace no-retaliation policies contained in most whistleblowing programs, says Allan Weitzman, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based partner with Proskauer, whose list of specialties includes whistleblowing.

(At Volkswagen, it was an internal whistleblower who uncovered the false carbon-dioxide claims that the company made public last week. “German news media reports have said that internal investigators looking into the emissions-cheating software, which came to light in September, have been hampered by a reluctance among employees to come forward,” the Times story states.)

Weitzman joins in the general chorus of employment attorneys who consider Diess’ move new and different, to say the least.

“I know I’ve never heard of [this kind of corporate amnesty],” he says. “But these are unusual circumstances, and [as pointed out in the Times article as well], Volkswagen wants to show to governmental agencies that it has done everything it can to solve this problem; well, amnesty is pretty broad … I’d say ‘Yes, they have gone about as far as possible’ ” in this endeavor.

Is it the right move? Weitzman thinks so.

“I think it’ll work, too, if it has the support of the union, meaning [very simply] that the people who look to unions as their source of job security will participate in the amnesty program if their union supports it,” he says.

“And the union should support this,” he adds, “because the future of the union is tied to the future of Volkswagen, and if Volkswagen cannot solve this problem, it’s going to result in the unemployment of many, many union members.”

Auto Workers’ Push for Pooling

The United Auto Workers is pushing for greater industry consolidation. No, I’m not referring to something along the lines of Fiat Chrysler’s CEO Sergio Marchionne’s on-again, off-again pursuit of merging with General Motors. I’m talking about employee healthcare.

ThinkstockPhotos-101922589A story in today’s Wall Street Journal titled “UAW Pitches Health-Care Co-op to Car Makers”  (subscription site) reports that the “United Auto Workers union is pushing Detroit car makers to put all their employees under one health-care umbrella, creating a powerful purchasing group that could upend traditional health-care markets.” It continues:

“The union’s idea would create a joint purchasing group for the three largest U.S. auto makers that would cover factory and white-collar workers and union-affiliated retirees. The group could total nearly 1 million members, a scale it believes would have unprecedented leverage in negotiating directly with hospitals, drug companies and others.

Assuming the idea even gets off the ground, it could take one to two years to set up and longer to generate significant savings, health-care experts said.”

As the WSJ story reports, “UAW President Dennis Williams previously has described the plan as a way for auto makers to gain more control over health-care expenses and win cost savings. He wants the purchasing group overseen by a board [consisting] of union and auto-industry executives. A prior effort to pull together employees of the three stalled in 2011 because auto makers weren’t interested in pursuing it.”

The UAW is currently negotiating a new four-year deal to replace the current contract, which is set to expire on Sept. 14.

I spoke to Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy for the National Business Group on Health in Washington, and asked him for his take on the UAW move.

Wojcik says he can’t comment on the union’s plans, since he doesn’t know the specifics, but adds that he certainly understands where the motivation is coming from. Plans, he says, are under a lot of pressure to reduce costs, especially with the ACA excise tax kicking in in 2018.

Still, Wojcik says he isn’t convinced the UAW pooling strategy would be the most effective way to address the cost issue.

“The problem with these efforts,” he says, “is [they involve] voluntary participation—so employers with success at controlling costs or lowering healthcare expenses end up not participating and those having trouble [on these fronts do participate]. Because of this, I don’t think the track record has been that successful.”

Pooling, he adds, has typically found greater success among smaller organizations.

The WSJ story also touches on the practice of direct contracting. “One option for the purchasing pool, say people familiar with the matter, would be for it to establish ‘centers of excellence … ,” the article says. It cites Lowe’s Cos., which has a deal with the Cleveland Clinic and flies employees to Ohio for heart surgeries at no cost to the worker.

Commenting on this, Wojcik notes NBGH’s just-released Large Employer Plan Design Survey reveals that respondents put direct contracting close to the bottom of initiatives having an impact on controlling costs.

Wojcik points out that there’s probably good reason for this. A number of factors need to be in place for direct contracting to work, including the employer needs to have a “significant market power, opportunities need to exist for improving care delivery and there needs to be a decent amount of provider competition.”

“It’s not just about negotiating a discount,” he says.