- What Would Make a New Hire Reconsider Joining Your Org?
- Is Paying Employees to Quit Worth It? Researchers Weigh In.
- How a Hospital Stay Can Harm Workers’ Financial Wellness
- Workers Paying 9% More This Year for Family Health Insurance
- Basketball Executive Call Foul Over His Firing
- Figures and Facts of the Week
What Would Make a New Hire Reconsider Joining Your Org?
An accepted job offer is no longer a guarantee that a new hire will show up on day one, according to a recent survey of 2,000 U.S. adults who have changed jobs in the past two years.
The research by employee transition platform Click Boarding revealed 46% of respondents said unfriendly treatment or not feeling welcomed would make them most likely to reconsider an offer they had already accepted. Other top factors causing candidates to rethink their decision include:
- Slow and unresponsive communication (39%);
- Uncertainty around pay and role expectations (33%);
- The lack of a clear or organized onboarding plan (26%);
- Zero flexibility in the interview process (18%); and,
- Little to no evidence of company culture (18%).
“Candidates do not stop forming opinions when they accept an offer,” said Christine Marino, Click Boarding’s chief strategy and transformation officer. “Uncertainty around the role and a lack of onboarding structure can give people reason to question their decision, while a clear plan for joining is a strong positive signal.”
She emphasized that good preboarding and onboarding maintain the trust built during recruitment by keeping people informed, answering questions and following through on the experience they were promised.
What specifically do incoming employees want/expect? Respondents’ top picks included:
- A friendly and welcoming atmosphere (32%);
- Transparency around pay and role expectations (26%);
- A clear and structured onboarding plan (26%); and,
- Fast, responsive communication (25%).
Is Paying Employees to Quit Worth It? Researchers Weigh In.
An employer offers its employees cash to voluntarily quit. Is this a shrewd strategy or a misguided move? Researchers at three Canadian universities (Wilfrid Laurier University, the University of Waterloo and McMaster University) jointly examined the practice to determine its efficacy.
The results, published in the Summer 2026 issue of the Journal of Management Accounting Research, stated that “pay to quit” incentives are highly effective since they simultaneously work to filter out disengaged staff and energize the motivation of those who choose to stay.
The researchers pointed out that while the most committed employees stay and the completely unaligned leave regardless of incentives, the financial offer primarily targets workers with moderate or wavering attachment. By inducing less-committed individuals to exit amicably, employers can protect their organizational culture, curb the costs of “quiet quitting” and avoid spending further resources on training individuals who are prone to leave for an outside offer.
The research’s most surprising finding was how the offer affects employees who decline the money. Forgoing a cash payout was shown to establish a psychological reference point that actively deepens an employee’s commitment to their role. For these individuals, the result is typically higher work effort than they exhibited before the offer.
How a Hospital Stay Can Harm Workers’ Financial Wellness
An analysis released Oct. 5 by financial services firm LendingTree showed a typical inpatient hospital stay now carries expenses that exceed what the average American earns in two and a half months of work.
The study calculated that the average inpatient stay costs an estimated $16,353 in hospital expenses. At $3,297 per day, a typical 4.96-day stay requires an American to work 435 hours (or nearly 11 weeks) to cover the bill. Based on the U.S. average hourly wage of $37.62, earning that amount demands approximately one-fifth of a standard 2,080-hour work year. Depending on location, earning enough to clear that expense can take anywhere from a few months to most of a year.
California tops the nation with the highest estimated hospital expenses for a typical stay, at $23,530, which sits 43.9% above the national average. The District of Columbia ($23,153) and Idaho ($22,236) follow closely behind.
The data underscored that medical costs are drastically outpacing wage growth. Since LendingTree’s previous analysis, in 2023, estimated hospital expenses for a typical stay surged 26.1% (up from $12,974), while average hourly earnings rose 11.2% (up from $33.82).
As a result, a typical hospital stay now requires 13.3% more work time to afford than it did previously, climbing from 384 hours to 435 hours. This shift is driven by a longer average length of stay (increasing from 4.50 to 4.96 days) alongside a 14.4% rise in daily hospital costs.
Workers Paying 9% More This Year for Family Health Insurance
U.S. workers are paying an average of $7,471 this year toward the premiums for employer-sponsored family health benefits, according to the annual benchmark health benefits survey released Oct. 22 by KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on national health policy. The figure represents a 9% (or $621) increase from 2025, outbalancing growth in both worker wages and general inflation.
The KFF survey of large and small employers highlighted a deepening financial strain on employees, particularly those working for smaller employers. Covered workers at companies with fewer than 200 employees are contributing an average of $9,687 toward family coverage. This amounts to $2,847 more than what is paid by workers at companies with 200 or more employees.
When an employer’s cost share is factored, the total annual premium for family coverage now averages $28,303 — a 5% ($1,310) jump from 2025. By comparison, worker wages rose 3.7% and general inflation rose 2.7% over the same period.
To address higher projected healthcare expenses, most surveyed large employers reported that they shifted costs onto their workforce. Among these companies:
- 44% increased the share of the premium that employees must pay; and,
- 21% raised deductibles or other cost-sharing requirements for most medical services.
Basketball Executive Calls Foul Over His Firing
A former cybersecurity vice president for the National Basketball Association’s Brooklyn Nets filed a lawsuit on Oct. 21 against the employer, alleging he was unlawfully terminated for taking parental leave.
In the lawsuit, Whalen v. Brooklyn Nets, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, plaintiff Ryan Whalen claims he was fired 16 days after returning from leave to care for his newborn son. The court documents show Whalen:
- Took two separate periods of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and New York’s Paid Family Leave law;
- Claims he received his first-ever negative performance review just nine days after returning to work, noting that two prior performance evaluations had shown he met all expectations;
- Alleges his supervisor showed “uncharacteristic hostility” and refused to speak with him upon his return; and,
- Was removed from a scheduled NBA conference roster while on leave.
Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment (BSE), the Nets’ parent company, has publicly denied the allegations and stated the employer is committed to a discrimination-free workplace.
The FMLA bars employers from discriminating or retaliating against workers who utilize protected leave. The lawsuit comes amid ongoing judicial scrutiny into how employers manage performance standards around employee absences. In 2024, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (in Wayland v. OSF Healthcare System) employers can’t hold employees who take FMLA leave to the same performance expectations as those who haven’t taken time off, underscoring the legal protections given to workers who utilize their leave rights.
Figures and Facts of the Week
- 94: The percentage of Americans who said inflation has impacted their financial future and ability to save, according to the State of Consumer Finance Report from fintech platform Kashable.
- 70: The percentage of American workers who may have to reinvent their roles to maintain (or elevate) their relevance in an AI-focused future, according to the Workforce in Motion report from consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
- 69: The percentage of global talent and senior leaders who agreed with the sentiment that HR, talent acquisition, learning and development, and workforce planning will become one integrated function by 2027, according to the 13th annual Talent Trends survey from consulting firm Korn Ferry.
- 57: The percentage of HR professionals who said “containing or controlling benefits” costs is their top priority during open enrollment this year, according to a Society for Human Resources Management poll conducted in September.
- 31: The percentage of job applicants who said they were turned down without ever being contacted by either a human or an artificial intelligence agent, according to the Future of Hiring Candidate Report from Greenhouse, an online hiring platform.
- 29: The percentage of U.S. adults who said their employer has a voting leave policy, according to the results of a survey by HR analytics/compliance platform Brightmine.
- 24: The current average time to hire, in days, from application to accepted offer, according to a benchmark report from recruiting platform Gem.
- 5: The global workforce percentage that financial services firm American Express will eliminate as part of a $336 million restructuring effort, according to a CNBC report. The layoffs will impact approximately 3,850 employees.
- 4: The percentage of tech and business leaders who said they have concrete plans in place to retool or restructure roles for an agentic-human workforce, according to a recent Gartner survey.
Editor’s Note: Additional Content
For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics: