Not a Member? Get access to HR news and resources that you can trust.
HR professionals share their advice for minimizing worker stress and boosting retention.
Is your employee handbook ready for the changing world of work? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Virtual SHRM-CP/SHRM-SCP Certification Prep Seminars kick off September 12 and fill up fast!
Expand your influence and learn how to become an effective leader. Join us in Phoenix, AZ | OCTOBER 2 - 4, 2017
Bipartisan interest spurs new legislation for 'open MEPs'
Proponents of allowing unrelated employers to participate in a common 401(k) plan—with a shared administrator and a single Form 5500 filing—made their case at the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing on May 18. Unlike other retirement savings initiatives, past efforts to enable defined contribution multiple employer plans (MEPs) have enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
Federal law now requires commonality among employers in a shared 401(k) or similar plan, usually meaning that the employers must be in the same line of business, such as with MEPs formed among auto dealerships. Open MEPs would not require employers to demonstrate a common interest before partnering in a pooled plan.
Other topics were up for debate during the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions
hearing, too. Among these:
"California says it doesn't care if there's no ERISA exemption, it's moving forward with its much criticized state-run retirement plan for private employees initiative," blogged FiduciaryNews.com's Chris Carosa. "Meanwhile, a committee hearing on MEPs—the true 'next generation' of retirement policy–goes virtually unnoticed."
The Case for MEPs
"What we should be doing is making it easier for small businesses to offer retirement plans to their employees," said Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., the subcommittee chairman, as he kicked off the hearing. Many small businesses cite set-up expenses as the key reason for not offering retirement benefits, he said, while MEPs would allow them to provide retirement plans to workers at a more affordable cost. "These plans are currently restricted by the federal government," Walberg noted. "With roughly 58 million American small business employees, it's time to change that."
In his testimony to the committee, James Kais, managing director at Transamerica, a benefits provider, cited findings from a
2016 study by the firm's research affiliate:
To encourage small employers to provide retirement plans, Congress must pass "reforms that address … costs, complexity and concerns about fiduciary liabilities," Kais said. "Under a multiple employer plan, many small businesses can join together to achieve economies of scale and avoid the administrative burden and liability of running the plan."
While MEPs have one overarching tax filing and an overarching audit, "everything would still be reportable to the various regulatory agencies for enforcement and for review," Kais said.
To aid the adoption of MEPs, he urged two legislative reforms:
[SHRM members-only toolkit:
Designing and Administering Defined Contribution Retirement Plans]
MEPs vs. State-Run Plans
"For those people who work for an employer that offers a 401(k), automatic enrollment results in a 50-percentage-point increase in plan participation," said Jason Furman, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., and formerly a member of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. "For people who don't have a plan offered through their employer, a number of states are moving forward" with auto-enrollment plans for private-sector employees.
Furman defended rules promulgated by the Obama administration's DOL, now repealed, that were intended to help states provide retirement plans to employees of small businesses. "Preventing [the states] from doing so will not just interfere with the retirement security of those [workers'] households, it will also interfere with our ability to learn from the experience of those states, which could help guide federal legislation in the future," Furman said.
However, "small business workers … are best served by saving for retirement in an ERISA plan," said Bradford P. Campbell, a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in Washington, D.C., who spoke for himself, not the firm. "We can reduce the regulatory burden without sacrificing those worker protections [under ERISA] by using MEPs."
Legislation in the Wings
Last September, the U.S. Senate's Finance Committee gave unanimous approval to a bipartisan bill—the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act (RESA)—that would, among other provisions, permit open MEPs. The bill referred to these as pooled employer plans (PEPs) to avoid confusing defined contribution MEPs with union-administered defined benefit multiemployer pension plans. Although RESA was not brought to a vote by the House or Senate before Congress adjourned last December, its sponsors plan to reintroduce the measure in the future.
Separate bipartisan legislation, which could be dubbed "MEPs lite," was
introduced in March by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., with a companion measure introduced in the House by Rep. Linda Sánchez, D-Calif., and Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn.
The Warner-Collins Retirement Plans Bill directs the DOL and the Treasury Department to allow employers and sole-proprietors participating in retirement plans with a common administrative framework to file a single aggregated Form 5500 for annual plan reporting. To file an aggregated Form 5500, the retirement plans would need to have the same trustee, fiduciary, plan administrator, plan year and investment menu.
"This legislation could fundamentally change the MEP landscape and even lessen the contention over state-run MEPs,"
explained benefits attorney Robert Toth, principal at Toth Law and Toth Consulting in Fort Wayne, Ind. "It would do this by opening the market for the advantageous pooling of the resources of small employers, which would have otherwise been reserved to the state programs. It also could minimize any need for new federal MEP legislation, and promote models which are a lot less risky than the MEP."
"There is hope that the open-MEP provision can be attached to tax reform or some 'must pass' legislation," said Michael A. Webb, vice president at consultancy Cammack Retirement in New York City.
Related SHRM Articles:
Bill Could Add 'PEP' to 401(k) Multiple Employer Plans,
SHRM Online Benefits, November 2016
Under Trump, Retirement Benefits to Be Tweaked, Not Transformed,
SHRM Online Benefits, November 2016
Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more.
Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Eye Care: A Visible Contribution to a More Secure Retirement
Become a SHRM Member
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies
[/_catalogs/masterpage/SHRMCore/Main.master][Title][SHRM Online - Society for Human Resource Management]