The small company I work for is considering a coemployment agreement with Administaff.  Researching them online, I have found no real negatives, yet financial guru Jim Kramer doesn't like them for reasons including the number of companies cancelling their agreements with them, suggesting there must be some downside.  What, if any, problems has your company experienced using Administaff?

This is just a personal opinion...  I have used them for multiple small companies.  They are a good HRO solution that provides full HR support including Benefits, Payroll, Recruiting (limited), Training, & Employee Relation services.  They charge a % of payroll for their services and sometimes it is rather difficult to understanding their true pricing plan.  They are a large publicly traded company, so you may find them a bit bureaucratic at times; but you get out of them what you ask for.  If you want them to help you design a personalized handbook, they will do it at no additional cost (you just need to ask for the services).  They have a lot of resources online and they will also send Account Executives to your office to better explain what they do.  Good luck.

Here is a post I made back in February (do a search under PEO on the forums and you might come up with more)...you can assume that you know who our PEO was.... 

From personal experience, we were the client of a large PEO in Texas until the end of 2005.  I was hired by my company with the express desire to pull all of our benefits/payroll/HR out of the PEO.  The first thing I did when I came in was to estimate, as best I could, the cost savings. The amount I came up with was $75K annually...and that included taking into account my HR/payroll/benefits salary and assuming the highest tax and workers compensation rates.   We had no more than 25 employees at any one time, so the savings was considerable at $3000 per employee.  This was with keeping basically the same (or better benefits).  We added STD/LTD and dropped vision coverage.

But the proof was in whether I could actually save the company that much money each year. I was able to accomplish it in 2006 AND 2007 and saved over $80K each year.  And 2008 looks to be about the same ($80K over 2005 PEO prices which I am sure have only gone up).  So it was very expensive for us to be in the PEO.

Some considerations:

(1) Although a lot of companies move to PEOs because they think they will get better group health or workers compensation insurance rates, we did not find that to be our case.  The COBRA amounts were higher than what we were small group quoted at the time we pulled out.          

(2) We found that the PEO had significant turnover and there was a different person to talk to depending on what the issue was. I had a two-sided piece of paper with names and contacts. Our "client manager" was not helpful in any knowledge -- she just passed us onto the specific group (payroll, 401k, etc)

(3) There was a lack of deep knowledge in any one area.  Mistakes were made and covered up.  We found quite a few when we requested records (especially on the 401k) when we pulled out.  It was actually kind of scary.

(4) While they state that they assume a lot of the liability and responsibility for employment decisions, based on conversations with the DOL in late 2005, mistakes made by the PEO were considered mistakes made by the employer.  Had any of our 401k participants decided to sue based on the 401k mistakes, we would have been equally liable.

(5)  In most PEOs, there are specific packaged benefits.  We found that there were a lot that we didn't use and no one at the PEO was reminding us they were there. For example, job descriptions and compensation surveys.  Or tuition reimbursement.  Things we were paying for but employees never used.

I don't ever see us returning to the world of PEOs. It would take one that had excellent knowledge and customer service skills to get me to even let them in the door to present their abilities.  But I have high expectations of both myself and others.  I am not their target client by any means.  They were probably happy to see me go.  Because I looked way below the surface and saw things that they didn't want anyone to see!

added now --- there are times when a PEO is valuable, but honestly if I were choosing a PEO, I would not consider the one you mentioned at all.

HRforME:

(4) While they state that they assume a lot of the liability and responsibility for employment decisions, based on conversations with the DOL in late 2005, mistakes made by the PEO were considered mistakes made by the employer.  Had any of our 401k participants decided to sue based on the 401k mistakes, we would have been equally liable.

As a side note, and something important to consider in negotiating with a PEO or most any other service provider, is that their assumption of liability only matters if they promise in writing to assume it in meaningful ways and if they have the clout to back that up.  For example, if the contract has them holding your company harmless, indemnifying it for any losses, providing funding or an actual legal team for your defense, and providing you with a certificate as named insured, then your bases are covered if the insurance carrier is reputable and the policy is verifiable and if the PEO has the $ to carryout their other obligations under the contract.  While it's true that the complainant could still sue your company under such a contract, the cost still goes to the PEO.  However, that won't save you from headline damage if the PEO botches a case on a sensitive issue such as discrimination.  In matters of reputation/headline liability, it's one thing to botch a 401(k), which is easily repaired with money, but it's a completely different thing to allow or cause someone to lose their job because of the color of their skin.  Your company's name will be in the headline, the PEO's brand will be in the clarfications/apologies section on page Q-37 a week later.