I'm wondering about the when DOL added the continuing duty for employers to monitor the 401(K), adding fiduciary to the employer, shouldn't it be an HR issue?
Not sure why or where any broker or agent should take on the task of fiduciary. HR works to benefit the employer, not the employee and is supposed to stay on top of never ending legal changes. I was reading an article today speaking about employers Understanding Your Fiduciary Responsibilities Under A Group Health Plan.
The DOL is making less and less prudent man rules to the point that anything you touch is a fiduciary issue.
With the stricter standards it opens up the door for:
I believe the benefits that the above two will receive will far outweigh any benefit to the employee. I was talking to a guy the other day that is considering to end the 401(K) for his 40 employees. To him the risk of a future disgruntled employee is too much to deal with and no other companies that are local offer a 401K.
Government just won't stop will they?
Not sure why or where any broker or agent should take on the task of fiduciary. HR works to benefit the employer, not the employee and is supposed to stay on top of never ending legal changes. I was reading an article today speaking about employers Understanding Your Fiduciary Responsibilities Under A Group Health Plan.
The DOL is making less and less prudent man rules to the point that anything you touch is a fiduciary issue.
With the stricter standards it opens up the door for:
- More work for attorneys by filing suits
- More money to the government by way of fines
I believe the benefits that the above two will receive will far outweigh any benefit to the employee. I was talking to a guy the other day that is considering to end the 401(K) for his 40 employees. To him the risk of a future disgruntled employee is too much to deal with and no other companies that are local offer a 401K.
Government just won't stop will they?