Several years ago I spent some time working in the Human Resource department of a fortune 500 company.  My role there was not specific to any benefits function, but rather as a function of productivity management. 

I learned alot from that experience.  I learned why companies no longer have "personnel Departments", but instead have "Human Resource Departments".

A company with a personnel department usually has a close relationship with its staff.  From the man that sweeps the floors at night to the senior design engineer to the CEO  and President.  They usually operate as a family.  The environment is usually warm and friendly with genuine concern for each member.  When a lay off occurs, the staff usually know well in advance so they can prepare.  They are given something to work with and the company often gives a package to them to help them through the times ahead.

A comany with a Human Resource department is most often distant to the staff.  They are there as part of the companies asset managment team.  the staff is recorded in books based on their employee number, no their name.  Although this may appear to be more efficient, it is dehumanizing.  The staff of a company are a necessary expense that must be managed.  Great pains are taken to ensure that no more staff is retained than is absolutley necessary to get the job done.  They contain costs by reducing staff during slow periods and bringing in temps/contractors during peak periods.  No one gets close, and the sense of family is lost.

In my role, in Humand Resources, I tallied production counts from every employee in a production role.  I generated reports based on those counts and delivered them to their line managers. 

When this system initally came out, senior management indicated that this was NOT going to be used to fire anyone, but was going to be used to help employees develop more efficient technique to improve productivity.

I am not sure how many people on the floor the day ths was announced really understood the dicotomy of what the general manager had told us:

If an employee's production level does not meet certain criteria, and the person does not adapt the more efficient techniques to meet the "standard", why would the company keep them?

If the staff on hand improves it's overall competency and technique to reach the higher production levels of the top rated employees, the company would not need as many people and could contain costs by reducing staff.

Either way, the specific purpose of this metric was not to "help" the employee, but to contain company costs by removing slackers and those that could not excell.

I am not saying that this is bad.  Overall, it is good for the profitability of the company, the stockholders, and those staff members that can meet the higher standards.

The problem is that the management team lied as to the purpose.  The staff ceased to help each other and became increasingly concerned with only their specific numbers,

It didn't take very long before people were let go.

When I worked for a company that actually had a personnel department, things

worked a bit differently.  When a new team member joined, we all had incentive to train that person well.  The better the person next to me was, the better I could be.  We took pride in our work and did our best.  We weren't in a competition to be the best team member - which flys in the face of the whole team concept.  Instead we just wanted to do our jobs and do them well.  If we saw a better way of doing something, we would suggest it to the other team member.  If ti worked great, if not they went back to the way they did it before or adapted it to make it work.

This leads me to the upcoming national health care reform that the current President is trying to rush through in 2009. 

Some of the upcoming changes to health care include the taxation of company provided health care benefits and an offer for a reduced rate government sponsored program - similar to medicare.

You may say, "great, now I have options".  Really? 

Based on prior experience in HR and other senior level corporate positions, I can tell you that you will not have options.

As part of cost containment, the company that is currently providing your benefits is going to drop the healthcare plan they currently offer.  They are likely not going to redirect those expenses into salary.  The employee's portion of health care expense will fold back into their paycheck.  The employee then has, in theory, the funds to buy their own insurance through the government sponsored program.

In some companies the entire company cost of healthcare may be added back to the employee's salary - since it was part of their compensation package.  But I suspect that any company that thinks they can fold that additional amount into their bottom line will.  Any salary addition will incur additional costs to the employee and the company for income tax, social security tax, and medicare taxes.

In the end there is no incentive to the company for the retention of a company sponsored health care plan.  There is no incentive to the company to redirec tthose funds into employee salary either.

You may say that that is ok, I still have what I was taking home.  NO YOU DON'T!  Your compensation has been modified without negotiation.  The terms and conditions you were hired under were changed to reduce your compensation.  It is no different that coming into a company at $60K and having the boss reduce it to $45K the day after you start.

Plus the nature of the healthcare you receive will be like that of those on medicare.

We all have families with a plethora of stories as to how well that has worked.  If in doubt check some opinion polls in other nations that have socialized medicine.  How many doctors are there in those countries?  Think it won't be a problem here?  How many doctors here don't take medicare?  Ask you family members who are on it.  They are full of stories on how long it took to find a doctor that would take their government sponsored insurance.

Why am I so sure that this will happen?  Because it will improve the bottom line profitability of the company - at least in the short run.  That will improve bonus checks based on that bottom line for the senior management team and improve dividends for the stock holders.

Human Resources is all about cost containment.  You are a resource in the company.  All company resources are managed for the purpose of maximum productivity and minimal cost.  That is the purpose of the managment.

So the old song that says, "I am not a number, I am a free man" is incorrect.  You are a numbered asset of the Corporation.