On February 17, 2009, the COBRA subsidy was signed into law. This is one of the most notable features of the ARRA or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
According to this plan, the employee will pay just 35% of the usual COBRA premium. If employees lose healthcare coverage due to termination, they will qualify for 65% government subsidy continued group insurance coverage.
The employee will pay just 35% of the usual COBRA premium. Under this plan, employees who lose healthcare coverage is due to terminate will qualify for a 65% government subsidy on continued group insurance coverage under COBRA.
A new U.S. Department of Labor COBRA subsidy fact sheet outlines this program. Under this program, the employer still pays the entire healthcare premium to the insurance company.
The employer can deduct 65% of the total premium from his or her payroll taxes. Under the ARRA COBRA subsidy, the employee pays $315, 35% of that amount. However, the employer can deduct $585 from his or her quarterly payroll taxes. The subsidy applies only to COBRA coverage since February 17, 2009, when the ARRA was signed into law.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
New E-Verify Deadline - May 21
Federal officials have agreed to delay implementation of E-Verify program until May 21 at the earliest.
The E-Verify program was jointly developed by the U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration. The program allows federal contractors and subcontractors to use an Internet-based electronic verification system to ascertain whether their new hires and existing employees are legally eligible to work in the United States.
However, Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) was concerned that “by issuing the rule, the government exceeded its authority by mandating that federal contractors use a program designed as a voluntary pilot project and by mandating the re-verification of existing employees”. This is something not currently allowed under E-Verify. So they petitioned the Obama administration to delay implementation of the program, and it was the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that extended the E-Verify deadline after receiving the request from the SHRM.
It is the second time the federal government has pushed back the deadline of E-verify. It was originally set to go into effect Jan. 15, but the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups challenged the legitimacy of the E-Verify regulation in a lawsuit; so the feds moved the date to Feb. 20.
“The federal government agreed that the new administration needs time to rethink mandatory E-Verify use, particularly in light of the stressed economy,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, in a statement. “We are hopeful that the incoming administration will agree that E-Verify is the wrong solution at the wrong time.”
The E-Verify program was jointly developed by the U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration. The program allows federal contractors and subcontractors to use an Internet-based electronic verification system to ascertain whether their new hires and existing employees are legally eligible to work in the United States.
However, Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) was concerned that “by issuing the rule, the government exceeded its authority by mandating that federal contractors use a program designed as a voluntary pilot project and by mandating the re-verification of existing employees”. This is something not currently allowed under E-Verify. So they petitioned the Obama administration to delay implementation of the program, and it was the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that extended the E-Verify deadline after receiving the request from the SHRM.
It is the second time the federal government has pushed back the deadline of E-verify. It was originally set to go into effect Jan. 15, but the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups challenged the legitimacy of the E-Verify regulation in a lawsuit; so the feds moved the date to Feb. 20.
“The federal government agreed that the new administration needs time to rethink mandatory E-Verify use, particularly in light of the stressed economy,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, in a statement. “We are hopeful that the incoming administration will agree that E-Verify is the wrong solution at the wrong time.”
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A new step to increase Kansas Minimum wage
Up to now, the state Kansas has the lowest minimum wage among all the American states. The Kansas minimum wage is only $2.65 an hour, For the last two decades, Democrats and their allies have been making efforts to raise Kansas’ minimum wage
A bill to raise Kansas' minimum wage won House approval Wednesday. Kansas’ minimum wage is supposed to rise to $7.25 an hour under the policy.
This is a new step on the basis of the moving efforts of Democrats, Labor unions and anti-poverty advocates have made on the road to higher minimum wage.
Although the new bill won many support, there are some person disagree with it. The protester hold that increase the wage only raises employers’ costs, causing them to cut low-wage, entry-level jobs.
However on the whole, it is an avoidable trend to raise the minimum wage of Kansas. It is already not a yes-no question but only a matter of time because it is wish of the community.
A bill to raise Kansas' minimum wage won House approval Wednesday. Kansas’ minimum wage is supposed to rise to $7.25 an hour under the policy.
This is a new step on the basis of the moving efforts of Democrats, Labor unions and anti-poverty advocates have made on the road to higher minimum wage.
Although the new bill won many support, there are some person disagree with it. The protester hold that increase the wage only raises employers’ costs, causing them to cut low-wage, entry-level jobs.
However on the whole, it is an avoidable trend to raise the minimum wage of Kansas. It is already not a yes-no question but only a matter of time because it is wish of the community.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Foreign Employees Have Been Affected by Workforce Retention Issues
During the Economic Downturn, lots of problems are brought to the Unites States’ economy. For example, the decline in revenue, and the decreased demand for goods and services. As a result, many employers face difficult workforce “right-sizing” decision.
Many companies are engaging in lay-offs, temporary shut-downs, and wage and hour reductions. It is important for those companies to pay attention to the impact on foreign employees (including H-1B, L-1, TN, E-3, and other workers) in the permanent application process.
If the employer and/or the foreign employee fail to notify the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) or the Department of Labor that there have been changes, they may suffer serious consequences. For instance, if the H-1B employers pay less money than that listed on regulation of the Labor Condition Application (LCA), they may incur liability for the back pay and civil monetary penalties.
Employers must remember that workers are protected from discrimination and discharge without any legal reasons. In a mixed workforce of foreign and domestic workers, an employer must ensure that whatever policies or procedures it uses to identify workers for reduction-in-force are non-discriminatory in form or effect.
Fortunately, many of these problems that related to immigration can be avoided if employers fill amendments to the LCA on time or immigration petitions indicating reduced wages or hours. Below is a list of possible scenarios. If any of these apply,
Reduction in Wages:
If there are wage reductions without LCA amendment an employee could prevail on a complaint with the Department of Labor.
If a reduction in wages is significant (“material”) then an employer needs to amend other, non H1-B applications as well.
Reduction in Hours:
A reduction in hours that make an employee work below full time employment would probably be “material”, requiring an amended petition. Apart from this, a new LCA would also be required, indicating part-time hours.
Terminations:
It is necessary for employers to notify USCIS regarding any H1-B termination or risk continuing obligations for wages under the LCA.
Many companies are engaging in lay-offs, temporary shut-downs, and wage and hour reductions. It is important for those companies to pay attention to the impact on foreign employees (including H-1B, L-1, TN, E-3, and other workers) in the permanent application process.
If the employer and/or the foreign employee fail to notify the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) or the Department of Labor that there have been changes, they may suffer serious consequences. For instance, if the H-1B employers pay less money than that listed on regulation of the Labor Condition Application (LCA), they may incur liability for the back pay and civil monetary penalties.
Employers must remember that workers are protected from discrimination and discharge without any legal reasons. In a mixed workforce of foreign and domestic workers, an employer must ensure that whatever policies or procedures it uses to identify workers for reduction-in-force are non-discriminatory in form or effect.
Fortunately, many of these problems that related to immigration can be avoided if employers fill amendments to the LCA on time or immigration petitions indicating reduced wages or hours. Below is a list of possible scenarios. If any of these apply,
Reduction in Wages:
If there are wage reductions without LCA amendment an employee could prevail on a complaint with the Department of Labor.
If a reduction in wages is significant (“material”) then an employer needs to amend other, non H1-B applications as well.
Reduction in Hours:
A reduction in hours that make an employee work below full time employment would probably be “material”, requiring an amended petition. Apart from this, a new LCA would also be required, indicating part-time hours.
Terminations:
It is necessary for employers to notify USCIS regarding any H1-B termination or risk continuing obligations for wages under the LCA.
Foreign Employees Have Been Affected by Workforce Retention Issues
During the Economic Downturn, lots of problems are brought to the Unites States’ economy. For example, the decline in revenue, and the decreased demand for goods and services. As a result, many employers face difficult workforce “right-sizing” decision.
Many companies are engaging in lay-offs, temporary shut-downs, and wage and hour reductions. It is important for those companies to pay attention to the impact on foreign employees (including H-1B, L-1, TN, E-3, and other workers) in the permanent application process.
If the employer and/or the foreign employee fail to notify the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) or the Department of Labor that there have been changes, they may suffer serious consequences. For instance, if the H-1B employers pay less money than that listed on regulation of the Labor Condition Application (LCA), they may incur liability for the back pay and civil monetary penalties.
Employers must remember that workers are protected from discrimination and discharge without any legal reasons. In a mixed workforce of foreign and domestic workers, an employer must ensure that whatever policies or procedures it uses to identify workers for reduction-in-force are non-discriminatory in form or effect.
Fortunately, many of these problems that related to immigration can be avoided if employers fill amendments to the LCA on time or immigration petitions indicating reduced wages or hours. Below is a list of possible scenarios. If any of these apply,
Reduction in Wages:
If there are wage reductions without LCA amendment an employee could prevail on a complaint with the Department of Labor.
If a reduction in wages is significant (“material”) then an employer needs to amend other, non H1-B applications as well.
Reduction in Hours:
A reduction in hours that make an employee work below full time employment would probably be “material”, requiring an amended petition. Apart from this, a new LCA would also be required, indicating part-time hours.
Terminations:
It is necessary for employers to notify USCIS regarding any H1-B termination or risk continuing obligations for wages under the LCA.
Many companies are engaging in lay-offs, temporary shut-downs, and wage and hour reductions. It is important for those companies to pay attention to the impact on foreign employees (including H-1B, L-1, TN, E-3, and other workers) in the permanent application process.
If the employer and/or the foreign employee fail to notify the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) or the Department of Labor that there have been changes, they may suffer serious consequences. For instance, if the H-1B employers pay less money than that listed on regulation of the Labor Condition Application (LCA), they may incur liability for the back pay and civil monetary penalties.
Employers must remember that workers are protected from discrimination and discharge without any legal reasons. In a mixed workforce of foreign and domestic workers, an employer must ensure that whatever policies or procedures it uses to identify workers for reduction-in-force are non-discriminatory in form or effect.
Fortunately, many of these problems that related to immigration can be avoided if employers fill amendments to the LCA on time or immigration petitions indicating reduced wages or hours. Below is a list of possible scenarios. If any of these apply,
Reduction in Wages:
If there are wage reductions without LCA amendment an employee could prevail on a complaint with the Department of Labor.
If a reduction in wages is significant (“material”) then an employer needs to amend other, non H1-B applications as well.
Reduction in Hours:
A reduction in hours that make an employee work below full time employment would probably be “material”, requiring an amended petition. Apart from this, a new LCA would also be required, indicating part-time hours.
Terminations:
It is necessary for employers to notify USCIS regarding any H1-B termination or risk continuing obligations for wages under the LCA.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
EEOC Seeks Comments on Proposed GINA Regulations
Nowadays genetic testing becomes more and more prevalent. The number grew from fewer than 100 thirteen years ago to 1200 today. It has long been a concern that employers would use the genetic information to weed out employees with potential health problems.
Signed into law in May 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits discrimination by health insurers and employers based on people's genetic information. Under GINA, it is illegal for employers to make job decisions such as hiring, firing, pay, training, working conditions, status, raises, promotions, etc. based on genetic information. Just like it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, religion and other factors, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of genetic information.
On Feb 25 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) presented a Notice of Proposed Rule Making implementing employment provisions of GINA and opened a 60-day public comment period until April 25, 2009 at www.eeoc.gov.
Susannah Baruch, Law and Policy Director of the Pew Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, said that "With the passage of GINA and its implementation, we welcome a new era. There are many factors an individual may consider in deciding whether to take a genetic test, but the fear of discrimination must not be one of them."
Francis S. Collins, M.D., PhD, head of the Human Genome Research Institute, said that the law would protect everyone with DNA, and thanks to the new law, no one needs to fear that their DNA “is going to be used against them”.
Signed into law in May 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits discrimination by health insurers and employers based on people's genetic information. Under GINA, it is illegal for employers to make job decisions such as hiring, firing, pay, training, working conditions, status, raises, promotions, etc. based on genetic information. Just like it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, religion and other factors, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of genetic information.
On Feb 25 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) presented a Notice of Proposed Rule Making implementing employment provisions of GINA and opened a 60-day public comment period until April 25, 2009 at www.eeoc.gov.
Susannah Baruch, Law and Policy Director of the Pew Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, said that "With the passage of GINA and its implementation, we welcome a new era. There are many factors an individual may consider in deciding whether to take a genetic test, but the fear of discrimination must not be one of them."
Francis S. Collins, M.D., PhD, head of the Human Genome Research Institute, said that the law would protect everyone with DNA, and thanks to the new law, no one needs to fear that their DNA “is going to be used against them”.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Take a lesson from Starbucks class action
Recently a class action by Starbucks’ employees gives a wake-up call to all employers. Employers have to pay attention to the topic of travel expenses.
This class action occurs as Starbucks fail to reimburse employees for their travel expenses.
Jonelle Lewis, the lead plaintiff, worked in a retail management position at a Starbucks in California Amador County community of Martell. She had worked in the company one and half years. During her employment, she regularly used her personal vehicle to do job-related work. She had asked the company several times for mileage expenses, but was denied by the excuse that the company had no such policy.
The class action included more or less 6000 Starbucks’ retail managers who had the same experience as Jonelle Lewis. At last, Starbucks paid more than three million dollars to settle the class action.
According to California Labor Code section 2802, it is imperative for employers to indemnify its employees for expenses they had spent for the work. Of course, travel expenses are included.
It is important to know that employees have the right to get incurred expenses if he uses his own vehicle for business purposes, including running an errand for business reasons.
The outcome of the Starbucks case should encourage employers to review their travel expense policies.
Hence the following important tips for employers: Review the company handbook; ensure that it provides that all workers are reimbursed for travel expenses; implement procedures for employees to claim and receive reimbursement for travel and other expenses.
This class action occurs as Starbucks fail to reimburse employees for their travel expenses.
Jonelle Lewis, the lead plaintiff, worked in a retail management position at a Starbucks in California Amador County community of Martell. She had worked in the company one and half years. During her employment, she regularly used her personal vehicle to do job-related work. She had asked the company several times for mileage expenses, but was denied by the excuse that the company had no such policy.
The class action included more or less 6000 Starbucks’ retail managers who had the same experience as Jonelle Lewis. At last, Starbucks paid more than three million dollars to settle the class action.
According to California Labor Code section 2802, it is imperative for employers to indemnify its employees for expenses they had spent for the work. Of course, travel expenses are included.
It is important to know that employees have the right to get incurred expenses if he uses his own vehicle for business purposes, including running an errand for business reasons.
The outcome of the Starbucks case should encourage employers to review their travel expense policies.
Hence the following important tips for employers: Review the company handbook; ensure that it provides that all workers are reimbursed for travel expenses; implement procedures for employees to claim and receive reimbursement for travel and other expenses.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
How to Manage a Diverse Workforce
Employers in various industries ranging from high tech to agriculture have known that they face a potential labor shortage. It is reported that the labor shortage will be particularly acute in the area of skilled labor.
As a result, employers have to employ persons who used to work in other industries. Then the traditional misunderstanding about employees should work in the same industry confronts with challenge. For example, employees in the hospital industry are not supposed to skip to other areas.
However it is not to say that we should encourage people to skip their work for this industry to another. It is a reminder that people in your organization may differ in background and experience. A diverse workforce is one which improves productivity by affording all employees a positive work environment and opportunity to advance within an organization.
As an employer who has employees with multi-experience, one should do as follows:
Set strict rules about non-discrimination in the workplace.
Have a clear idea about what qualifications are needed for a certain position and make sure the each person has the right job based on quality rather than his experience.
Post your job listing advertisements in newspapers that have a diverse audience so that you reach new candidates in different communities
Monitor regularly efforts you have made and determine what activities have played a positive role in diverse workforce;
Showcase diversity in your annual report, on your website, and in every opportunity to communicate with the public.
Form your own corporate culture. As your employees come from different areas, they have been educated or cultivated in their particular ways; you must have your own corporate culture to pull them together.
As a result, employers have to employ persons who used to work in other industries. Then the traditional misunderstanding about employees should work in the same industry confronts with challenge. For example, employees in the hospital industry are not supposed to skip to other areas.
However it is not to say that we should encourage people to skip their work for this industry to another. It is a reminder that people in your organization may differ in background and experience. A diverse workforce is one which improves productivity by affording all employees a positive work environment and opportunity to advance within an organization.
As an employer who has employees with multi-experience, one should do as follows:
Set strict rules about non-discrimination in the workplace.
Have a clear idea about what qualifications are needed for a certain position and make sure the each person has the right job based on quality rather than his experience.
Post your job listing advertisements in newspapers that have a diverse audience so that you reach new candidates in different communities
Monitor regularly efforts you have made and determine what activities have played a positive role in diverse workforce;
Showcase diversity in your annual report, on your website, and in every opportunity to communicate with the public.
Form your own corporate culture. As your employees come from different areas, they have been educated or cultivated in their particular ways; you must have your own corporate culture to pull them together.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
D.C. Mandatory Sick Leave Rules
The controversial Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008 have been effective in 2008 in the District of Columbia. Recently, this new act requires employers to provide mandatory paid sick leave.
The new law mandates that paid sick leave for any absences must be given to all the eligible employees working in the D.C. area. No matter mental or physical illnesses, employees must be given the paid sick leave. Also, employees must be given paid time off for what is called preventative medical care or for family care.
Recently, the DOES (D.C. Department of Employment Services) released the details to clarify some of the details of the proposed new Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act. That may also help end some of the confusion surrounding the legislation.
Eligible workers must also have accumulated one year of continuous service and a minimum of 1,000 hours of work during the previous 12-month period. Workers were unable to start using the sick leave until February 11, 2009.
The new law mandates that paid sick leave for any absences must be given to all the eligible employees working in the D.C. area. No matter mental or physical illnesses, employees must be given the paid sick leave. Also, employees must be given paid time off for what is called preventative medical care or for family care.
Recently, the DOES (D.C. Department of Employment Services) released the details to clarify some of the details of the proposed new Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act. That may also help end some of the confusion surrounding the legislation.
Eligible workers must also have accumulated one year of continuous service and a minimum of 1,000 hours of work during the previous 12-month period. Workers were unable to start using the sick leave until February 11, 2009.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Start Out 2009 Right With This Employment Law
2009 is a big year as there are many amendments to employment laws; for example, the amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the new family and Medical Leave Act (FML) regulations, and the anticipated passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). In order to keep with the pace, you must bear the following in mind.
1. Actions to ADA amendment
The new amendments to ADA make it easier for employees to make disability discrimination claims, but harder for employers to defeat these claims. So it is necessary for employers to take active action. First, they should review and update the policies and practices regarding the ADA’s interactive dialogue process. Then employers should record the following: when an employee requests an accommodation, the accommodations denied and/or provided, written documentation for the decisions that are made, and if it requires immediate attention. Last but not least, it is very important for employers to refresher training of HR professional and line management based on the new ADA requirements.
2. Actions to FMLA amendment
As the new FMLA became into effect on January 16, 2009, all employers are supposed to revise FMLA policy and regulations accordingly.
To comply with the changes, you should make the following considerations:
Consider updating your rules on return-to-work certification to take advantage of the new employer rights.
Consider whether to change your rules about the use of paid leave to take advantage of the new flexibility.
Consider whether to begin tighter enforcement of abuse notification rules and procedures.
3. Actions to EFCA
Although the EFCA is not finally released, Non-Union employers still need to make preparation, and they put themselves in a position to launch their union-free campaigns before a union targets them for a card signing campaign.
1. Actions to ADA amendment
The new amendments to ADA make it easier for employees to make disability discrimination claims, but harder for employers to defeat these claims. So it is necessary for employers to take active action. First, they should review and update the policies and practices regarding the ADA’s interactive dialogue process. Then employers should record the following: when an employee requests an accommodation, the accommodations denied and/or provided, written documentation for the decisions that are made, and if it requires immediate attention. Last but not least, it is very important for employers to refresher training of HR professional and line management based on the new ADA requirements.
2. Actions to FMLA amendment
As the new FMLA became into effect on January 16, 2009, all employers are supposed to revise FMLA policy and regulations accordingly.
To comply with the changes, you should make the following considerations:
Consider updating your rules on return-to-work certification to take advantage of the new employer rights.
Consider whether to change your rules about the use of paid leave to take advantage of the new flexibility.
Consider whether to begin tighter enforcement of abuse notification rules and procedures.
3. Actions to EFCA
Although the EFCA is not finally released, Non-Union employers still need to make preparation, and they put themselves in a position to launch their union-free campaigns before a union targets them for a card signing campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)