The Price of Liberty: An HR Perspective

By Gary L. Miller  

A recent statement issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sounds the alarm that various government entities are passing laws and rules that are eroding our religious liberty.¹ One of the threats cited in the document pertains to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive coverage mandate that many faith-based employers find morally objectionable and that may cause some Catholic colleges and universities to discontinue their group medical plans. This column explores cost and HR issues that could be experienced by employers choosing to go down this path.

A Brief Background

To counter the generally unsustainable trend of rapidly rising healthcare costs, as well as curb the growth in the number of citizens without medical insurance, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law in March 2010. Buried within this incredibly complex law is a provision that group health plans provide coverage for preventive care without cost-sharing by employees if the health plan is not grandfathered.

This seemingly innocuous requirement has become a source of serious controversy for many faith-based employers. The commotion does not stem from the likely effect that the preventive care requirement will increase health plan premiums or from the administrative burden it creates by forcing employers to amend their group plan documents and clearly communicate these changes. Rather, the contention comes from the guidelines that require group medical plans to cover contraceptive services, which include certain abortifacient drugs and sterilization.²

Another twist is that HHS allows an exemption from the contraceptive mandate for religious employers but uses a very rigorous standard for qualification as a “religious employer.” As a result, most Catholic employers, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, do not qualify for the exemption and will therefore have to comply with the mandate. For these organizations, mandate enforcement will start when their plan years begin following August 1, 2013.

Instead of expanding the definition of a religious employer, HHS proposed an alternative method of funding the contraceptive coverage. The alternative—that insurers and third-party administrators, rather than employers, pay for the objectionable provisions—still requires the contraceptive provision to be included in faith-based organizations’ group medical plans, and also fails to make accommodations for self-insured entities.

Barring a change to the contraception requirement or an expansion of the exemption, the HHS mandate will force Catholic colleges and universities to subsidize, or at least facilitate access to, products and services many consider morally objectionable. The broader concern of religious liberty comes into play because such a mandate inhibits the free exercise of religion: Many religiously affiliated organizations serving the common good as an expression of their beliefs and values will be forced to support activities they consider morally reprehensible just to be able to fulfill their mission.

An HR Perspective

Because the PPACA does not require employers to offer health plans, faith-based employers with a moral objection to the mandate have the liberty not to offer medical benefits at all, thus avoiding having to provide contraceptive coverage. Those that drop their plans won’t be alone. Surveys have generally found that between 2 percent and 20 percent of employers plan to drop coverage beginning in 2014.³

The adverse consequences of dropping a group medical plan would be huge. The 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Employer Health Benefits Survey reported that the value of this benefit to employees is substantial: $10,944 for those with family coverage and $4,508 for those with single coverage.⁴  The government makes this benefit even more valuable because employees receive the employer-paid portion of the group plan premiums tax free. Further, the portion of the premiums that faculty and staff pay can reduce, dollar for dollar, their taxable compensation.

So, out of concerns for fairness combined with the need to be able to attract and retain valuable employees, Catholic colleges and universities that proceed with dropping their plans may want to make faculty and staff “whole.” Making employees whole entails adjusting total compensation so that other benefits and cash compensation are increased enough to offset the loss of the value of the group medical plan. However, executives who are considering dropping these benefits should face one uncomfortable truth from the onset: It won’t be possible to make all employees whole because any attempt to do so would be extremely expensive with inequitable and possibly discriminatory results. Further, an employer that drops its group health plan before 2014 would impose substantial non-monetary costs on certain employees.

The Cost of Making Employees Whole

Truven Health Analytics analyzed the cost-effect of dropping medical coverage for 33 large employers with a total of 933,000 employees.⁵ Truven found that the average cost to these employers to make their employees whole—after factoring in the savings from no longer subsidizing premiums in the group plans—would be an additional $8,786 per employee per year.  What constitutes this cost?

First, there is the cost of the insurance itself. Ideally, the cost of providing faculty and staff additional pay to help with exchange-purchased medical insurance would be essentially the same as the cost of the premium subsidies provided in the group plan; however, the Truven study found that the exchange-purchased insurance would actually cost more than the group insurance.

Beyond the cost of the exchange insurance itself, the Truven study discovered additional expenses. First, faculty and staff would need additional cash compensation to offset the extra taxes associated with their increased pay. Using the KFF healthcare reform calculator to estimate the cost of insurance purchased through the exchange for a 45-year-old single employee in the 25 percent tax bracket, the additional compensation to cover these taxes would need to be roughly $4,000. This figure would rise for employees purchasing family coverage, for employees in higher tax brackets, and for older people because the exchanges will be allowed to vary premiums with age.

Also, beginning in 2014, the PPACA imposes a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee (not counting the first 30) on any employer that does not offer medical coverage and has 50 or more full-time equivalent employees. The penalty will be assessed only if at least one employee purchases insurance on an exchange and receives a government premium subsidy, which is entirely likely.

For employees whose earnings are under the Social Security wage cap, the employer would also have to pay additional payroll taxes of 7.65 percent on the make-whole cash payments to their employees. Further, employer benefit and insurance costs could increase for benefits that are salary-based, such as defined contribution retirement plans, group life insurance premiums, workers compensation, and disability insurance. The Truven analysis also factored in other costs, making it easy to see how an employer’s expenses related to dropping a group health plan and making employees whole could add up to $8,000 or more.

Additional Considerations

The high price of dropping coverage and making employees whole by increasing their cash compensation may be cost-prohibitive for many colleges and universities. But even if a college or university could afford this additional expense, it would likely not be possible to make employees whole without discriminatory results. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act both require equal pay for the same work. To make employees whole, different amounts of increased compensation would be necessary for different employees. For instance, higher-paid employees with family coverage would have to receive more make-whole compensation than lower-paid employees with individual coverage. Family coverage is more expensive than single coverage and lower-paid employees would be more likely to be eligible for exchange-purchased medical insurance government subsidies. The end result would potentially be having individuals in the same job with similar performance and seniority levels being paid at significantly different rates. These disparities could expose the employer to the possibility of unacceptable discriminatory gender or racial pay differences.

Therefore, faith-based employers that drop their medical plans are not likely to be able to make their employees whole, given both the expense and the legal restrictions prohibiting discriminatory pay. The best that a college or university could do may be to take the value of the employer premium subsidy formerly provided to employees and distribute that amount equally to all employees as a percentage of pay. Faculty and staff could then use this additional pay to help them purchase exchange-based insurance. Some employees would come out ahead (such as those who obtain coverage through a spouse’s plan and those who receive a government subsidy for exchange-purchased insurance) and some would be worse off. But this would be the most fair, affordable, and legal approach for a college or university that opts to discontinue its group medical plan.

End Note: What Happens in 2014?

The importance of access to affordable comprehensive medical insurance for employees cannot be overstated. Given the ability of individual market insurers to deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions, employer-based healthcare provides a lifeline for many. As of 2014, however, the value of a group medical plan as a key component of total compensation dramatically decreases for one primary reason: Employer group coverage will no longer be the only way for employees to secure access to high-quality, affordable healthcare. The PPACA requires the establishment of state-based insurance exchanges through which people can purchase individual policies. As of January 1, 2014, all medical plans—including those on the state exchanges—will not be able to impose pre-existing condition restrictions or vary premiums on the basis of the purchasers’ health conditions. Additionally, exchanges will offer a wide array of quality choices to healthcare consumers, with clear descriptions of benefits. For those who cannot afford coverage, their exchange-purchased plans will be subsidized by the government.

While the healthcare law may be weak in provisions that control costs and improve quality, it does an outstanding job in guaranteeing access to high-quality affordable coverage (except for Medicaid-eligible individuals). Thus, beginning in 2014, an employer that chooses to drop its group medical benefits will not greatly diminish the value of its total compensation because of insurance access issues.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not represent those of DePaul University or the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. This article does not provide legal or tax advice on the matters discussed above. Any issues involving employment, group benefit plans, or taxation should be discussed with appropriately qualified counsel.

References

1        United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. (May 17, 2012). Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, A Statement on Religious Liberty.

2        Salganicoff, A. & Ranji, U. (February 21, 2012). Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Health Reform Source. Retrieved on August 25, 2012.

3        U.S. Government Accountability Office. (July 13, 2012). Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Estimates of the Effect on the Prevalence of Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage. Retrieved on August 27, 2012.

4        All plan contribution and premium information was taken from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (2011). Employer Health Benefits 2011 Annual Survey.

5        Justice, C. (July 2012). Modeling the Impact of “Pay or Play” Strategies on Employer Health Costs. Truven Health Analytics.

The Messenger Matters

The Messenger Matters

Rev. Craig B. Mousin

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a wonderful opportunity to merge the biblical message and Catholic Social Teaching with mission and values in employment decisions. As previous editions of Update have noted, the Bible, Christian theological tradition, and Catholic Social Teaching (CST) all highlight the welcoming of the foreign born into our land.¹ In contrast, U.S. immigration laws ban the employment of persons who are not citizens or otherwise authorized to work by the federal government—setting up a conflict between the law and the Christian religious tradition to welcome the stranger as the native.

Last January, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Court held that the First Amendment protects religious institutions in making decisions regarding choice of their religious leadership, upholding a “ministerial exception” to the nation’s anti-discrimination laws.²   In that case, as summarized in the spring 2012  issue of  Update, a unanimous court stressed that the Constitution’s religious liberty provisions gave religious employers autonomy to decide who is best to lead them without government interference.

Justice Alito in his concurrence concisely remarked: “When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters.”

The EEOC had argued that such a holding might permit employers to hire undocumented persons without following the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The attorneys for the local church contended that the ministerial exception would not allow religious organizations to hire the undocumented as ministers, arguing instead that immigration laws would “remain untouched.”³ Apparently unconvinced by the wisdom of either side’s arguments, Chief Justice Roberts instead announced, “There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.”⁴   Given the convergence of events, specifically, the long history of the Catholic theological tradition on immigration, the Hosanna-Tabor decision, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ recent letter on religious liberty,⁵  that time may have come.

Legal Threats to Discerning the Divine: One common theme in the biblical stories regarding immigrants reveals that the messenger of God frequently arrives as the immigrant, the sojourner, the stranger, the other. In Leviticus 19:34, we hear God’s instruction to “treat the immigrant as the native, for you were once slaves in Egypt.” In Hebrews 13:2, we are instructed to show hospitality to the stranger, for in so doing, we often entertain the divine messenger. As the last two editions of Update have noted, CST on immigration has developed from these biblical understandings and the Catholic theological tradition of treating the stranger equally as the native. Laws that prohibit hiring of a foreigner or a person not designated by the national government as authorized to work under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) stand in stark contrast to such biblical understandings of ourselves and the immigrant. In effect, they deny a faith-based organization’s ability to discern whether the one it seeks to call for leadership is that divine messenger, jeopardizing the religious organization’s future.

When the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently issued  Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, it cited several examples of government laws that challenged the Church’s ability to be the Church, including state laws such as those in Alabama that restrict the Church’s ability to show hospitality through its ministries to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. The bishops recognized that the conflict between the state and conscience might at times cause one to either refuse to follow an unjust law or face the consequences of civil disobedience.

Such decisions are weighty ones and require significant thought and prayerful discernment within the community. The Hosanna-Tabor decision, however, may provide faith organizations the ability to maintain integrity with their Holy Scriptures and teachings while following the law. The ministerial exception might allow organizations to hire undocumented persons in ministerial positions. Imagine university ministers who have fled their homelands seeking safety and peace in the United States, teaching the Joseph story of freedom from slavery to leadership positions. Imagine undocumented persons who have traveled from Central America crossing deserts and suffering hardship leading a Bible study on the Exodus for university students. Imagine if religious universities and colleges joined churches, synagogues, and mosques throughout the nation in hiring undocumented persons as ministers, rabbis, or imams who—through prayer, witness, and example—revealed the message of hospitality to the stranger. Would our students gain greater understanding of CST and the biblical message? Would universities and colleges discover new ways to incorporate and implement CST into their policies and procedures?

For prudential reasons, some might argue that Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to leave this question for another day is too slim a reed to put institutions at legal risk by hiring an undocumented person as a minister. Others might note that the complexity of immigration laws and the confusing interaction of civil and criminal penalties make this claim to the ministerial exception too frightening to envision. Indeed, although immigration law has been considered a civil law for over a hundred years, the federal government has enacted laws increasingly criminalizing offenders, both those entering this nation and those employing them. Even if the ministerial exception protected an institution, hiring an undocumented person as a minister does not automatically protect that minister from greater risk to deportation, as the person’s underlying undocumented status would not seem to change with employment under the Hosanna-Tabor exception. Thus, increased risk of apprehension and removal might find few undocumented persons willing to accept a call to university minister positions

Such fear underscores how employer sanctions restrict the religious freedom of faith-based organizations to choose their ministers without government interference. The Supreme Court’s insistence that government cannot deny religious institutions autonomy to name their leadership dovetails with the bishops’ insistence that Catholics join with other religions to provide education when government laws violate religious liberty. Employer sanctions, by denying the community of faith its ability to call its messenger, eviscerate the community’s ability to discern the divine messenger or choose its leaders. Given the bishops’ call to vigilance, even for those universities and colleges not willing to risk seeking the ministerial exception for the undocumented, such institutions can still take other actions to oppose this restriction on religious liberty.

Taking Action: The bishops stressed that Catholic colleges, universities, and other faith-based institutions can play a special role in the effort to engage more members of the body politic in protecting religious liberty. Employer sanctions and the I-9 forms that all new employees must complete to demonstrate their authorization to work in the United States provide a particularly apt place for education about CST, mission and values, and religious liberty. The harsh consequences of the federal law faced by the employee occur in at least three occasions: (1) when initially seeking employment; (2) when hired with authorization, but subsequent events cause an otherwise good employee to become unauthorized under the immigration laws, necessitating termination; and (3) when hired despite lack of authorization, which was not discovered until information comes to the notice of the employer and termination is required under the immigration laws—all scenarios not faced by a native.

Severe consequences follow all three scenarios, including the loss of employment and possible removal from the country, breaking up families and communities, and disrupting the workplace. Immigration law is complex. Conflicting instructions and regulations, and changing judicial interpretations and congressional actions all merge to make the complexity especially daunting to human resources departments and workers themselves. Fear of sanctions may chill institutions, with the consequences falling upon the workers.

Why not seize this opportunity to seek ways to ameliorate the process within legal parameters? Internally, colleges and universities can work with their human resources staff to implement policies that make the employer sanction provisions as hospitable as possible. If an applicant would be hired but for lack of paperwork, work with local bar associations to provide lists of competent immigration attorneys, including those of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) or Catholic Charities. Some employers provide for the expense of legal assistance for employees who discover they may be eligible for employment, but simply lack the proper paperwork. Consider policies to rehire workers terminated for lack of proper status, but who subsequently obtain status.

Outside campus, colleges and universities can work to educate Congress to the incompatibility of employer sanctions with CST and the biblical call to hospitality. Demonstrate the tragic loss to the common good when undocumented students graduate from our nation’s schools, but fail to use their skills because they cannot obtain work authorization. Inform local communities about how employer sanction provisions break up communities and hurt the common good.

Universities and colleges may also opt to build upon the research that demonstrates how employer sanctions undermine the U.S. economy, stifle business initiative, and weaken local communities.⁶ Immigration attorney Angelo Paparelli reminds us that one purpose of employer sanctions is to increase employment opportunities for U.S. citizens.⁷  If the undocumented person brings innovation, ideas, and imaginative solutions for increasing the number of jobs in this nation, then perhaps new theories of work and corporate legal structure might lead to solutions that fulfill the purpose of IRCA without necessitating removal of that person. Universities and colleges could link business schools with their entrepreneurial institutes and law schools to seek those novel responses. Such collaboration could fulfill St. Vincent DePaul’s call to be “inventive to infinity.”⁸   Law schools could also provide the legal scholarship and briefs that respond to those cases, raising the issues Chief Justice Roberts postponed to a subsequent day

Unfortunately, the draconian timelines of employer sanctions and the harsh realities of immigration law limit the remedies that might be available. Continuing relationships to legal services for immigrants might be the best an institution can provide for those not hired or subsequently terminated under employment sanctions. Hiring an undocumented person as a minister of care might also offer pastoral help with particular sensitivity to those terminated or not hired under the law. Indeed, the messenger matters.

We invite you to respond to this column through our blog, http://hr-forum-ccu.blogspot.com/. There, we also invite you to post links to your mission statements as well as HR and compensation philosophy documents. This sharing will permit a fuller discussion of how mission and CST influence the employment process.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not represent those of DePaul University or the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. This article does not provide legal advice on the matters discussed above. Any issues involving employment and immigration should be discussed with a competent licensed attorney in your state.

1 See Collier, E. (Fall 2011). Higher education, mission and undocumented students. Update, 11; and Weldon, L. (Summer 2011). The Catholic Church and immigration: Pastoral, policy and social perspectives. Update, 20. Both articles also provide a number of resources on Catholic responses to immigration.

2 132 S.Ct. 694, 710 (2012).

3 Petitioners Reply Brief, at 20, 2011 WL 3191978.

4 Hosanna-Tabor at 710.

5 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. (May 17, 2012). Our First, Most Cherished Liberty, A Statement on Religious Liberty.

6 For one example of how IRCA fails to meet its alleged purposes, see Massey, D.S., Durand, J., and Malone, N.J. (2002). Beyond Smoke and Mirrors, Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

7 See Paparelli, A. (March 18, 2012). Immigration Options for Dreamers Under Existing Immigration Law. Last visited on May 30, 2012.

8 Coste, P., C.M., ed. (1985–2010). Vincent de Paul: Correspondence, Conferences, Documents, ed. and trans. by Kilar, J., D.C., Poole, M., D.C., et al., 1-13a & 13b. New York: New City Press, 11:131.

A slightly longer version of this article can be found at: http://www.accunet.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3753

Organizational Justice: A Core Competency for Catholic Colleges and Universities

by Gary L. Miller with Guest, Jed Babbin

Over the next few years, workforce trends will create new management challenges. For instance, many surveys show that employee engagement levels are at record lows.  Once the job market begins a solid recovery, these low engagement levels could translate into turnover.  At the same time, record numbers of older workers will be retiring.  As a result of these trends, the challenge to recruit and retain talent will intensify. Central to any effective management response will be considerations for organizational justice.

I’m using the term “organizational justice” to refer to employees’ perceptions of fair treatment as influenced by, among other things, a manager’s style.  Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal reported last June that business schools are beginning to “…teach ‘soft skills’ – such as accepting feedback with grace and speaking respectfully to subordinates – that companies say are most important in molding future business leaders.”

As one example of how this might pertain to Catholic colleges and universities, consider the rise in the number of credit hours taught by adjunct faculty, a general pattern in higher education.  Relatively recently, some have asked if these contingent faculty are being equitably paid.  This question has been felt more acutely at some institutions as adjuncts have attempted to organize with fairness being the rallying call.  At first glance, the contentious issues appear to center around compensation, but as I have read about these situations, there seems to be another underlying issue – respect.  Could it be that these justice concerns are fueled by issues independent of actual compensation?

To provide some background on organizational justice and its significance to many of today’s management challenges, I am being joined in this column by Jed Babbin.  Jed is currently completing his doctoral dissertation at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology and developing a managerial training program to teach soft skills related to organizational justice.   

Jed, to launch us into this discussion, please give us a little background about the origins of organizational justice as a topic of management research.

While its roots are grounded in philosophy as well as literature, and most recently law, organizational justice is a relatively new field of research. Only in the past few decades has it become a serious topic of research in both psychology and management. The current empirical research of justice in the workplace can be traced back to John Stacey Adams’ Equity Theory in the 70s, which involves an individual’s comparison of effort and rewards with the effort and rewards of another.  This led to the study of perceptions of distributive justice which studied outcomes, such as the equitable allocation of rewards such as pay and bonuses.  Distributive justice also covers consistent and equitable application of punishments for workplace infractions. From this early research, a number of other drivers of justice perceptions have been identified.

When I think about justice, it’s definitely about the outcomes. What are these other drivers and how might they relate to the adjunct issues that I mentioned above?

Perceptions of justice have also been shown to be influenced by how employees are treated on a day-by-day basis. Research performed by Bies & Moag as early as 1986 showed that the extent to which employees feel they are being told truthful information and treated with respect clearly affects the degree to which they report management is  “just.”  These sorts of perceptions relate to procedural justice and interactional justice, subcategories of organizational justice.  As another example, managers who are rude to subordinates or lie about knowledge of higher level decisions tend to be seen as unjust.  Such treatment by managers has been shown to affect employees’ overall feelings of just treatment by the employer as well as affect their health. Supervisory training can be an effective way to change behavior and improve outcomes as shown in a study by Greenberg. In this study of hospitals that implemented pay cuts, he found that nurses whose managers had training in interactional justice experienced far less insomnia than those with untrained supervisors.

Perceptions of injustice can also be affected by a lack of information. An abundant volume of research shows that it is extremely important to provide people with detailed information about how reward decisions or potentially negative outcomes are made.   An earlier study by Greenberg found that the communication used to inform employees of an impending pay cut affected how many workers resigned and the rate of theft by those who stayed.  Some of the research related to this aspect of organizational justice – informational justice –is cited at the end of this column. Research has shown that other important drivers of fairness perceptions include consistency in decision-making and whether or not expressed concerns are given serious attention.

Jed, does the research show that these drivers are as significant as outcomes when it comes to influencing perceptions of just treatment?  Are they as significant as, say, actual pay levels?

Yes. The research shows that these drivers can be as substantial in influencing perceptions of organizational fairness as actual outcomes.  Remember that we are talking about perceptions, not necessarily reality.  A management decision might be considered unfair due to a simple failure to adequately communicate all of the important information.  For instance, going back to Adam’s Equity Theory, a person may compare his or her own effort at the office to a colleague who moves slower and wonder why she gets more rewards, not knowing that she often puts in additional hours from home. 

I would suspect that most managers with responsibility for adjuncts, particularly at Catholic colleges and universities, treat them fairly well. 

While I can’t speak directly to your statement, note that even well-intentioned managers can be perceived as unfair and disrespectful.  Many people think that managing “fairly” is intuitive; but it’s not. For instance, a perception of injustice can be derived from a manager failing to consider an employee’s opinion.  This oversight could likely drive negative perceptions regardless of whether or not the opinion was acted on.

What makes a high level of organizational justice a rather difficult goal to achieve on a widespread basis is that managers almost always tend to view themselves as fair, even when their subordinates disagree.  Many managers who are considered unfair by others simply lack of an awareness of how their behavior is perceived.  Further, they may not recognize the importance of soft skills they need to develop and often do not realize that there are best practices in this area. For these reasons, I feel that training managers in some of these skill sets could be highly effective.

Going back to the adjunct faculty topic, in many institutions, there has been a steady growth in the number of adjuncts over the past several years often without the development of corresponding policies, communications, and management training programs to properly manage this new employee population.  Could justice issues arise from this type of situation?

Definitely. Merely the absence of proper and thorough communication of the processes, and of the outcomes of the processes that are in place to ensure fairness, could result in perceptions of injustice. Again, research has shown us that it’s the perception more than the actual outcome that influences employees’ attitudes and their behavior. That is, attitudes are formed by what employees perceive the situation to be.  Therefore, sufficient and accurate communication is definitely important to avoid misconceptions.  If, however, the underlying processes are missing, thorough communications can only go so far.

By the way, all of the items you mentioned – communications, policies, and management training – are important tools for promoting organizational justice and distinguishing an employer from competitors while potentially contributing financially.

That being said, as far as I know, there has as yet not been any research on the relationship between organizational justice and contingent faculty perceptions of fairness.  However, a large volume of other research shows a relationship between the factors we discussed above and employees’ health and behaviors, such as theft, innovation, absenteeism, and litigation.  Some of this research is cited below.  Given the research findings, it is reasonable to conclude that using the above-mentioned tools to promote respectful treatment of employees could be effective in higher education. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that non-government sector turnover is increasing. Does any of the research show a connection between turnover and organizational justice?

Yes, multiple studies have shown this connection between turnover and organizational justice.  Most applicable is a hotel chain that found its hotels where employees had the highest perception of organizational justice had not only the lowest levels of turnover, but also the highest customer satisfaction.

Jed, do you have any other comments, especially as pertains to adjuncts?

For those interested in learning more I would recommend reading Greenberg’s 2009 article listed below.

Though I will be looking to train managers rather than adjuncts, I am looking to test my training next year. The application of my research is actually to develop a six- hour training module that would be tailored to the organization and delivered over two days.  It will be for first-line managers and use a number of practical exercises where participants will practice using some key ideas from my research. I would not charge for training, but only require the organization to cover the minimal associated costs.  

                                                                                --------------------------

The title of this column suggests that organizational justice should be a core competency for Catholic colleges and universities.  In Centesimus annus, the Blessed Pope John Paul II states that “the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavoring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society” (35).  While Catholic colleges and universities are not business firms, they can serve as models for employers of what it means to be a “community of persons” working together “at the service of the whole of society.”  To the extent that organizational justice research can point to practical ways to increase management effectiveness as well as perceptions of fairness and community cohesion, it deserves serious consideration.   Additionally, the research findings suggesting a relationship between organizational justice measures and employee health suggest that there are also considerations for colleges and universities that are implementing wellness programs.

The opinions expressed in this column are ours alone and do not represent the opinions of DePaul University or the Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

References

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561-568. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561

John Paul II.  (1991). Centesimus annus: To His Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate the Priests and Deacons Families of Men and Women religious all the Christian Faithful and to all men and women of good will on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum 1991.05.01.  Retrieved from Vatican: The Holy See website:  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

Greenberg, J. (2009). Everybody talks about organizational justice, but nobody does anything about it. Industrial And Organizational Psychology: Perspectives On Science And Practice, 2(2), 181-195. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01131.x

Korn, M., and Light, J.  (2011, June 7).  On the lesson plan: Feelings.  The Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com   

Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 432-443. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.432

We invite our readers to respond to this column through our blog at http://hr-forum-ccu.blogspot.com/.

We also invite you to post links of your mission statements as well as HR and compensation philosophy documents on our blog if you would like to share them with our readers.  This will permit a fuller discussion of how mission and CST can influence the employment process.  Also, please let us know if you would like us to link to any of your institution’s documents.

March 20, 2012