________________________________________________________________

  E M P L O Y E E   B E N E F I T S ,   C O M P E N S A T I O N
                  A N D   P E N S I O N   L A W
                Vol. 1,  No. 1: November 27, 2000
_________________________________________________________________

Publisher:     Legal Scholarship Network
               a division of
               Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. (SSEP)
               and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Editor:        PAMELA J. PERUN
               Urban Institute
               Mailto:pamela@planetnow.com

Copyright:     SSEP, Inc. 2000. All rights reserved.

Leading Social Science Research Delivered To Your Desktop
               http://www.SSRN.Com/

 To search the entire SSRN Electronic Library by author, title,
 JEL code, or full text of the abstracts in our database, please
 visit http://papers.ssrn.com/

 To browse all abstracts published in this journal, please visit
 http://www.ssrn.com/link/benefits-compensation-pension-law.html

REDISTRIBUTION
 SSEP provides permission to redistribute single copies of this
 journal. No one may charge for redistribution, and the issue
 must be distributed in its entirety.

SIGN OFF
 To stop delivery of one or more of the SSRN journals, write to
 Mailto:Remove@SSRN.Com Include the JOURNAL name or the NETWORK
 name or ALL in the subject line. If your address has changed, let
 us know by writing to Mailto:AddressChg@SSRN.Com

ALIGNMENT
 If this document is misaligned, please set type face to a
 non-proportional font such as Courier 10.

PAPER DOWNLOADS
 If you need assistance downloading papers from our web site,
 please contact Mailto:Support@SSRN.Com
 

T A B L E   of   C O N T E N T S
_________________________________________________________________
 

NEW and FORTHCOMING ARTICLES

"The Cash Balance Controversy"
      Virginia Tax Review, Vol. 19, P. 683, 2000
     EDWARD A. ZELINSKY
        Yeshiva University
        Benjamin Cardozo School of Law
 

"Microsoft, Time Warner amd the Perils of Worker
 Misclassification"
      Tax Management Memorandum, Vol. 41, P. 287, 2000
     ALDEN J. BIANCHI
        Mirick, O'Connell, Demallie & Lougee, LLP
        Worcester Office
 

"Lessons to be Learned From Harvard Pilgrim HMO's Fiscal Roller
 Coaster Ride"
      Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2000
     FRANCES H. MILLER
        Boston University School of Law
     WALTER W. MILLER, JR.
        Boston University School of Law
 

"Rethinking the Risk of Defined Contribution Plans"
      Tax Notes, August 28, 2000
     REGINA T. JEFFERSON
        Catholic University of America
 

S S R N   I N F O R M A T I O N
_________________________________________________________________

          * Partners in Publishing
          * Administrative Information
             - Missing issues & change of address
             - Solicitation of abstracts
          * Directors
          * Subscription to SSRN Journals
_________________________________________________________________

ACQUIRING PAPERS
 Download papers directly from the included web address or contact
 the author or other contact person directly. Provide an address
 to which the author or other contact person can send a paper
 copy and mention that you saw the abstract in SSRN.
 

EDITORIAL POLICIES
 To provide the broadest coverage of research in Employee
 Benefits, Compensation and Pension Law we do not referee working
 papers. We accept abstracts of working papers in Employee
 Benefits, Compensation and Pension Law whose topics suit the
 coverage of the journal and which are part of the worldwide
 scholarly discourse.
 

N E W   and   F O R T H C O M I N G   Articles
_________________________________________________________________

"The Cash Balance Controversy"
      Virginia Tax Review, Vol. 19, P. 683, 2000

      BY:  EDWARD A. ZELINSKY
              Yeshiva University
              Benjamin Cardozo School of Law

Paper ID:  Cardozo Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 25

 Contact:  EDWARD A. ZELINSKY
   Email:  Mailto:zelinsky@ymail.yu.edu
  Postal:  Yeshiva University
           Benjamin Cardozo School of Law
           55 Fifth Ave
           New York, NY 10003  USA

ABSTRACT:
 This article provides an overview of cash balance pension plans
 and of the controversies surrounding them. The article describes
 the cash balance format and contrasts that format with the
 traditional defined benefit pension. The article also reviews
 the legal framework currently governing cash balance plans and
 discusses the critique and the defense of cash balance
 arrangements.

 This article concludes that, as a matter of law, the typical
 cash balance plan violates the statutory prohibition on
 age-based reductions in the rate at which participants accrue
 their benefits. However, as a matter of policy, there is no
 sound reason to bar cash balance plans nor is there a logical
 basis for the resentment engendered by the conversion of
 traditional annuity providing pension plans to the cash balance
 format. Moreover, the article suggests, the proponents of cash
 balance plans are correct to contend that such plans permit
 employers to remain within the defined benefit system rather
 than debark to the defined contribution universe.

 As a matter of psychology, the resentment against cash balance
 conversions, deeply and sincerely held, largely stems from
 psychological expectations in the continuation of the status
 quo, rather than any legal or logical entitlement to the
 continuation of existing pension coverage.

 In the best of all worlds, this article argues, the proper
 resolution of the cash balance controversy would be to amend the
 statutory prohibitions on age-based reductions in benefit
 accrual rates to legitimate cash balance plans and to permit
 private ordering between employers and employees (or their
 unions) to govern such conversions. However, as a matter of
 politics, the article presents a package of legislative
 compromises which, given the political realities of the
 situation, is the best likely outcome of the cash balance
 controversy.

______________________________

"Microsoft, Time Warner amd the Perils of Worker
 Misclassification"
      Tax Management Memorandum, Vol. 41, P. 287, 2000

      BY:  ALDEN J. BIANCHI
              Mirick, O'Connell, Demallie & Lougee, LLP
              Worcester Office

 Contact:  ALDEN J. BIANCHI
   Email:  Mailto:ajbianchi@modl.com
  Postal:  Mirick, O'Connell, Demallie & Lougee, LLP
           Worcester Office
           100 Front Street
           Worcester, MA 01608-1477  USA
   Phone:  (508) 791-8500
     Fax:  (508) 791-8502

ABSTRACT:
 Alden Bianchi, Esq. describes the tax and benefit issues
 presented by the newly-emerging contingent workforce and how
 employers who rely on contingent workers can best reduce their
 exposure to claims such as those confronting Microsoft
 Corporation and Time Warner in two recent, high profile cases.
 He reviews the fundamentals of a worker's status as a common law
 employee vs. an independent contractor and then compares these
 employment categories to a litany of so-called "contingent"
 employment arrangements including leased employees, independent
 contractors, freelancers, employees retained though
 intermediaries (such as Professional Employer Organizations),
 and part-time, seasonal and temporary workers. He stresses that
 the label attached to a worker does not count, and that
 employment status is for the most part functionally determined.
 He also notes that many of the labels the have attached to
 contingent workers have no precise legal definition. One of the
 fundamental issues addressed in the article is the extent to
 which classes of employees can be excluded from plan
 participation even where a previously excluded contingent worker
 is reclassified as a common law employee. Or, to the matter
 another way, to what extent can an employer cover employees
 wearing blue badges and exclude those wearing orange badges? Mr.
 Bianchi concludes that plans can be selective in their coverage
 but that, even with careful plan design, drafting and
 administration, the employers and plan sponsors will still have
 face some residual exposure.

______________________________

"Lessons to be Learned From Harvard Pilgrim HMO's Fiscal Roller
 Coaster Ride"
      Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2000

      BY:  FRANCES H. MILLER
              Boston University School of Law
           WALTER W. MILLER, JR.
              Boston University School of Law

 Contact:  FRANCES H. MILLER
   Email:  Mailto:fmiller@acs.bu.edu
  Postal:  Boston University School of Law
           765 Commonwealth Avenue
           Boston, MA 02215  USA
 Co-Auth:  WALTER W. MILLER, JR.
   Email:  Mailto:wmiller@bu.edu
  Postal:  Boston University School of Law
           765 Commonwealth Avenue
           Boston, MA 02215  USA

ABSTRACT:
 The recent high-profile financial difficulties of Harvard
 Pilgrim Health Care, the largest HMO in Massachusetts and
 consistently rated as one of the top ten HMOs in the nation,
 shed light on many problems common to health insurers throughout
 the country. This article explores those difficulties in the
 context of the short but complicated history of Harvard Pilgrim,
 and its structural, regulatory and competitive environments. The
 state legislation which made a receivership proceeding possible
 for Harvard-Pilgrim offered some protection for subscribers, but
 failed to provide the means for achieving a long term solution.
 The statute merely presented a method for staving off immediate
 collapse by temporarily protecting the plan from dissolution,
 and forcing the plan's contracting providers to continue
 delivering care even if owed money by the plan. The article
 concludes by drawing lessons for understanding and ideally
 avoiding similar managed care near-fatalities in the future.

______________________________

"Rethinking the Risk of Defined Contribution Plans"
      Tax Notes, August 28, 2000

      BY:  REGINA T. JEFFERSON
              Catholic University of America

 Contact:  REGINA T. JEFFERSON
   Email:  Mailto:Jefferson@Law.CUA.edu
  Postal:  Catholic University of America
           Columbus School of Law
           Washington, DC 20064  USA
   Phone:  202-319-5025
     Fax:  202-319-4459

ABSTRACT:
 This article analyzes the risk of shortfall in the expected
 retirement benefits in defined contribution plans, as regulated
 by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
 The article compares and contrasts the allocation of investment
 risks between defined benefit and defined contribution plans.
 This article demonstrates that current pension law offers
 inadequate protection of the expected retirement benefit in
 defined contribution plans and proposes additional fiduciary,
 insurance, and funding protection for defined contribution
 plans.