SUMMARY: For Mark Bertolini, CEO of health insurer Aetna, a near-death experience led him to make big changes in his personal life and at the company. Living with pain from a skiing accident inspired him to take up yoga and meditation, which made him wonder if it could also help his employees. Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports.
PAUL SOLMAN (NewsHour):Aetna insurance, number 57 on the Fortune 500, surprised corporate America recently when it hiked its minimum wage to $16/hour. It was a quirky move by a quirky CEO, Mark Bertolini, motorcycle enthusiast, former hippie, and two-time college dropout, who aced the GMAT exam on a lark, which led to a Cornell MBA, and a career in health insurance.
This CEO manages by walking around, slowly and mindfully, actually practicing walking meditation, and attentively listening to his employees.
MARK BERTOLINI, CEO, Aetna:This income inequality issue was rattling around in my head. I mean, I came from a family that wasn’t — you know, we, sometimes didn’t have insurance. My dad worked half-time. My — you know, my mother was a part-time nurse.
And so I had been pushing the team on it, but I was getting this sort of — you know, we’re running a company, you know?
PAUL SOLMAN: Yes.
MARK BERTOLINI: This is a — we’re, you know, a capitalist enterprise. We’re a commercial enterprise.
PAUL SOLMAN: Did they know that you were a hippie in the…
MARK BERTOLINI: Oh, yes.
PAUL SOLMAN: … ’70s?
MARK BERTOLINI: Well, kind of. We’re not the first company to really make this kind of investment. I mean, Patagonia, there’s a book out about it, right? “Let My People Go Surfing,” right?
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Peggy Young, a former UPS driver who says the company discriminated against her when she was pregnant. UPS placed Young on unpaid leave for several months because she was unable to perform her required duties, they said.
Young’s lawyers say the company’s actions violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Women’s rights groups and members of Congress rallied outside the Supreme Court this morning to support Young.
But there are at least two sides to the argument.
Joining us to describe what happened inside the court today, Marcia Coyle of “The National Law Journal,” Emily Martin, vice president and general counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, and Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business’ Small Business Legal Center.
Marcia, I want to start with you and with the law. Let’s look at this 1979 law, ’8 law. I’m always getting that wrong. If I put on my glasses, I can see it.
(LAUGHTER)
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: OK.
GWEN IFILL:It says, “Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is illegal sex discrimination, and pregnant women shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes as other persons not so affected, but similar in their ability or inability to work.”
Sounds pretty straightforward and pretty simple.
MARCIA COYLE:Simple, until you get into the Supreme Court and start arguing what the language means.
Today, the arguments really focus primarily on that second clause, how to treat pregnant workers. UPS has argued and it argued today that it has basically a pregnancy-blind policy. It offers accommodations to workers whose injuries occur or conditions develop on the job, not off the job.
So it’s not singling out pregnant workers. They are being treated like all of UPS’ other workers who have injuries or conditions that develop off the job. And it looked at that second clause and said, that’s not a freestanding, independent claim to bring — to charge discrimination against UPS.
It is tied to the basic prohibition against pregnancy discrimination. Well, Ms. Young’s attorney says, OK, let’s look at the language of that clause again. It says nothing about on-the-job, off-the-job distinctions. It also doesn’t speak to the cause or the source of the limitation on the worker.
Instead it says, you’re to compare the pregnant worker limitation with non-pregnant workers who have similar limitations on their ability or inability to do the job. And also he claims that UPS doesn’t have a pregnancy-blind policy because it does offer accommodations to workers, for example, who lose their Department of Transportation certificate that allows them to drive. And also it accommodates workers with conditions that are recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
SUMMARY: The health care reform law was designed to help give people without health insurance an affordable avenue to buy it. But how does it affect Americans who get their insurance through their workplace? NewsHour analyst Susan Dentzer joins Ray Suarez to help answer frequently asked questions about how companies are affected.
JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Tonight, we are looking at the changes that start taking effect when new online insurance marketplaces known as public exchanges open next month. One big question: how employers may respond.
Just today, Walgreens announced that it will move 160,000 of its employees into a private exchange where they can choose an insurance plan, but with company subsidies. Executives cited generally rising health care costs as one reason, but said expenses associated with the new law were a factor as well. Time Warner, Sears and Trader Joe's have announced similar moves.
That brings us to our series in which we try to answer some of your more frequently asked questions.
And to Ray Suarez.
RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): The law was designed to provide coverage for many who don't have health insurance now. But there are still many concerns and questions about what it may mean for employer-sponsored coverage and whether some businesses may change what they offer as the law takes full effect.
The workplace is our focus tonight.
And, once again, we're joined by NewsHour regular, analyst Susan Dentzer.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
