Many employers require their employees to participate in a health risk assessment (HRA) in order to be eligible for health insurance coverage. But in a recent informal opinion letter, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that requiring employees to participate in a health risk assessment in order to be eligible for health insurance would violate the ADA.
Disability-related inquiries prior to a job offer are prohibited by ADA, and they are permitted only if they are required of all employees in the same job category and if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. The EEOC determined that requiring all employees to take this HRA that includes disability-related inquiries and medical examinations as a prerequisite for obtaining group health coverage does not appear to be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and therefore it would violate the ADA.
To be job-related and consistent with business necessity, the employer must have a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that a medical condition will impair the employee's ability to perform essential job functions, or that the employee's medical condition will cause a direct threat. As part of the HRA, employees are required to fill out a short health-related questionnaire, take a blood pressure test, and give a blood sample for screening. None of them related to the employee's ability to perform the essential job functions.
The EEOC noted that disability-related inquiries and medical exams are permitted as part of voluntary wellness programs. A wellness program is considered voluntary only if employees are neither required to participate nor penalized for non-participation. If employee’s decision not to participate will lead to rejection of a significant employment benefit, then such a program is not voluntary. Thus, employers should review their programs to determine whether such programs are truly voluntary.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
DOL Pays $400 Million in Benefits to Colorado Residents under EEOICPA
The U.S. Department of Labor announced on May 11 that it has paid more than $400 million to compensate Coloradans sickened by working in the atomic weapons industry under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).
The act was created to help those individuals who suffered cancer and other illnesses caused by exposure to toxic substances. Survivors of such individuals may also be eligible for benefits.
The department said that the money went to 5,042 Colorado claimants under the EEOICPA.The department also said Coloradans had filed 8,713 cases under the act, but about 15% were ineligible for benefits. There are still 929 cases awaiting a final decision.
The act covers several facilities in Colorado including Rocky Flats, the Rulison Nuclear Explosion Site, and the Rio Blanco nuclear explosion site.
"It is our goal to compensate eligible claimants as quickly as possible. This milestone further demonstrates that we are working hard to achieve our goal," said Rachel P. Leiton, director of the department's Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation. "We have compensated many deserving individuals from the state of Colorado. But we also believe there may be other Coloradans who have not yet filed for these benefits."
The act was created to help those individuals who suffered cancer and other illnesses caused by exposure to toxic substances. Survivors of such individuals may also be eligible for benefits.
The department said that the money went to 5,042 Colorado claimants under the EEOICPA.The department also said Coloradans had filed 8,713 cases under the act, but about 15% were ineligible for benefits. There are still 929 cases awaiting a final decision.
The act covers several facilities in Colorado including Rocky Flats, the Rulison Nuclear Explosion Site, and the Rio Blanco nuclear explosion site.
"It is our goal to compensate eligible claimants as quickly as possible. This milestone further demonstrates that we are working hard to achieve our goal," said Rachel P. Leiton, director of the department's Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation. "We have compensated many deserving individuals from the state of Colorado. But we also believe there may be other Coloradans who have not yet filed for these benefits."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Swine Flu--What Should Employers Do
Until now, the swine flu (Influenza A virus, H1N1) has not reached pandemic status, but it could. No one has a natural immunity to it, so everyone must be careful. The number of swine flu cases reported in the United States and Mexico is increasing and the media are paying close attention to the outbreak, so many of the employees may have concerns regarding their potential for exposure to the flu at work and the steps employers are taking to ensure their well-being.
If you are an employer, then you have the duty to protect your employees. You should let your employees know that you’re aware, and you have made some preparation to deal with the flu. Basically, you can share with your employees various infection control instructions, such as frequent hand washing with soap and water, or even alcohol-based hand gels. Besides, there are some other aspects you should pay attention to:
First, you should review your safety policies and develop an emergency response plan. You should try to reach the “best practices” that go beyond legal requirements. This will be helpful. And an emergency response plan can deal with both natural and man-made disasters to protect employees and ensure continued operations at the facility.
Second, you’d better review your telecommuting policies and adjust them. If necessary, employees can be encouraged to stay at home if they experience flu-like symptoms. In this way, you can continue your operation in a crisis. This will be helpful and reduce your loss.
Then, you should make plans for the impact of a pandemic on your business, your employees and customers. Try to communicate to your employees that you are following the situation closely and will take all necessary steps to ensure their safety and health.
If you are an employer, then you have the duty to protect your employees. You should let your employees know that you’re aware, and you have made some preparation to deal with the flu. Basically, you can share with your employees various infection control instructions, such as frequent hand washing with soap and water, or even alcohol-based hand gels. Besides, there are some other aspects you should pay attention to:
First, you should review your safety policies and develop an emergency response plan. You should try to reach the “best practices” that go beyond legal requirements. This will be helpful. And an emergency response plan can deal with both natural and man-made disasters to protect employees and ensure continued operations at the facility.
Second, you’d better review your telecommuting policies and adjust them. If necessary, employees can be encouraged to stay at home if they experience flu-like symptoms. In this way, you can continue your operation in a crisis. This will be helpful and reduce your loss.
Then, you should make plans for the impact of a pandemic on your business, your employees and customers. Try to communicate to your employees that you are following the situation closely and will take all necessary steps to ensure their safety and health.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
New Pregnancy Discrimination Regulations
According to a recent EEOC discrimination suit, employers should be cautious about routinely requiring fitness-for-duty certification from pregnant workers. This suit involved Britthaven, Inc. a corporation that owns and operates a chain of nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
Since 2002, the EEOC charged that the employer has subjected pregnant employees to different terms and conditions of employment, compared to non-pregnant employees. Specifically, the pregnant women are required to furnish a full medical clearance in order to continue working, even if the employee took no time off and did not indicate that she couldn’t perform her usual duties. This was contrast to the treatment of non-pregnant employees.
This practice resulted in employees being forced to take medical leave or were terminated in spite of the fact that they were fully able to perform all their job duties.
“Working women who chose to have children, should not be penalized or treated differently than other employees simply because they are pregnant,” said Lynette Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC. “Employers must remember that paternalistic attitudes toward pregnant employees that result in unequal treatment at work violate federal law.”
In the past, pregnant workers are often required to work in the last 30 to 60 days of a pregnancy. That practice is now called into question, unless the employee has taken time off or otherwise indicated that she has restrictions or limitations.
Since 2002, the EEOC charged that the employer has subjected pregnant employees to different terms and conditions of employment, compared to non-pregnant employees. Specifically, the pregnant women are required to furnish a full medical clearance in order to continue working, even if the employee took no time off and did not indicate that she couldn’t perform her usual duties. This was contrast to the treatment of non-pregnant employees.
This practice resulted in employees being forced to take medical leave or were terminated in spite of the fact that they were fully able to perform all their job duties.
“Working women who chose to have children, should not be penalized or treated differently than other employees simply because they are pregnant,” said Lynette Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC. “Employers must remember that paternalistic attitudes toward pregnant employees that result in unequal treatment at work violate federal law.”
In the past, pregnant workers are often required to work in the last 30 to 60 days of a pregnancy. That practice is now called into question, unless the employee has taken time off or otherwise indicated that she has restrictions or limitations.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
California Got Nearly $4 Billion for Education
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced on April 17, 2009 that nearly $4 billion is now available for California under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. California is the first state to benefit from a special fund for states that was created by the economic stimulus law.
Duncan said the money will "save jobs and lay the groundwork for a generation of education reform." California will be eligible to apply for another $2 billion this fall. The funding is being made available per California's successful completion of Part 1 of the State Stabilization Application, which was made available April 1.
According to the Department of Education, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program is a new one-time appropriation under ARRA. The funding in the program could help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs nationwide at risk from state and local budget cuts, and also pay for projects to repair and modernize schools. In order to get the fund, California and other states had to submit applications that assure they will make progress in several areas, including teacher quality, turning failing schools around, allowing more charter schools to open and reporting whether state academic standards are rigorous enough. States also must set up sophisticated data systems to track student performance.
Duncan said he'll come down "like a ton of bricks" and withhold the next round of funds from anyone state or school that defies President Barack Obama's wish that the money be used to save teaching jobs and overhaul failing schools.
Duncan said the money will "save jobs and lay the groundwork for a generation of education reform." California will be eligible to apply for another $2 billion this fall. The funding is being made available per California's successful completion of Part 1 of the State Stabilization Application, which was made available April 1.
According to the Department of Education, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program is a new one-time appropriation under ARRA. The funding in the program could help save hundreds of thousands of teaching jobs nationwide at risk from state and local budget cuts, and also pay for projects to repair and modernize schools. In order to get the fund, California and other states had to submit applications that assure they will make progress in several areas, including teacher quality, turning failing schools around, allowing more charter schools to open and reporting whether state academic standards are rigorous enough. States also must set up sophisticated data systems to track student performance.
Duncan said he'll come down "like a ton of bricks" and withhold the next round of funds from anyone state or school that defies President Barack Obama's wish that the money be used to save teaching jobs and overhaul failing schools.
Monday, April 27, 2009
It is trend to pass Employee Free Choice Act
Nowadays almost every American is waiting for the approval of Employee Free Choice Act, including the America’s veterans.
Many of America’s veterans have come out in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act, among them, active and retired union members who have served in the armed forces. In Arkansas, these veterans got together Wednesday to talk about the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s the long cherished dream for them to form a union and fairness and respect in the workplace. It is one of the values that they fought for years.
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, employees will be more able to organize as a labor union bargaining for better wages and working conditions. If passed, employees could have more rights given by the EFCA to strike a better deal with their employers, making business and industry owners fairly share profits earned by employees' labors.
The Employee Free Choice Act is American’s needs. All Americans needs to stand up with their co-workers who need protection from firings and harassment.
We all need to step up and get involved in this campaign because this is our best shot to reform the current laws.
Many of America’s veterans have come out in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act, among them, active and retired union members who have served in the armed forces. In Arkansas, these veterans got together Wednesday to talk about the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s the long cherished dream for them to form a union and fairness and respect in the workplace. It is one of the values that they fought for years.
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, employees will be more able to organize as a labor union bargaining for better wages and working conditions. If passed, employees could have more rights given by the EFCA to strike a better deal with their employers, making business and industry owners fairly share profits earned by employees' labors.
The Employee Free Choice Act is American’s needs. All Americans needs to stand up with their co-workers who need protection from firings and harassment.
We all need to step up and get involved in this campaign because this is our best shot to reform the current laws.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
New H-1B Visa Restrictions Release
New restrictions for employers who receive stimulus find to hire foreign workers through the H-1B visa program was recently outlined by the Department of Homeland Security. On March 20, 2009, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service announced these regulations.
Employers who receive TARP funds will need to provide additional statements to the U.S Department of Labor. It is to show that they have made good-faith attempts to fill the positions with qualified American workers.
H-1B regulations are generated under the Employ American Workers Act or EAWA which was signed on February 17, 2009. However, the new provisions are in effect until February 17, 2011. H-1B visas are granted for maximum of 6 years to highly-skilled, temporary foreign workers, such as IT industry, including computer programmers and software engineers.
Before hiring an H-1B worker, any employer who has accepted TARP funds must take a number of actions. The employers can use industry wide standards to make a good-faith effort to recruit and hire qualified U.S. workers. Employers must also show that they have offered the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally as qualified as (or better qualified than) the H-1B worker.
Employers who receive TARP funds will need to provide additional statements to the U.S Department of Labor. It is to show that they have made good-faith attempts to fill the positions with qualified American workers.
H-1B regulations are generated under the Employ American Workers Act or EAWA which was signed on February 17, 2009. However, the new provisions are in effect until February 17, 2011. H-1B visas are granted for maximum of 6 years to highly-skilled, temporary foreign workers, such as IT industry, including computer programmers and software engineers.
Before hiring an H-1B worker, any employer who has accepted TARP funds must take a number of actions. The employers can use industry wide standards to make a good-faith effort to recruit and hire qualified U.S. workers. Employers must also show that they have offered the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally as qualified as (or better qualified than) the H-1B worker.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
IFCO Systems Paid Back Wages and Penalties
IFCO Systems North America Inc., doing business as IFCO Systems, has paid $1,602,267 in back wages to its employees. DOL said the Wage and Hour investigation found 1,751 employees in 17 states had not been properly paid by the company for overtime hours that they worked as the Fair Labor Standards Act requires. The Wage and Hour Division also fined the company $963,050 in civil money penalties.
Investigators found that IFCO Systems, a Houston-based company that manufactures and repairs reusable plastic containers and wooden pallets, did not pay its employees time and one-half for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The company also did not maintain the records that they are required to keep under the law.
The investigations took place in the states of Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Utah on the case, according to DOL.
Back wages and civil money penalties have been paid in full, and the company has agreed to injunctive relief enjoining them from further violations of the FLSA.
A separate 2002 Wage and Hour Division investigation in Atlanta, Ga., found the company had violated FLSA, resulting in $30,538 in overtime back wages paid to 67 employees.
"The Department of Labor is a voice for working families, and I am committed to ensuring that employers comply with federal labor laws so workers can have confidence they will receive the compensation they've earned and deserve," said Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis.
Investigators found that IFCO Systems, a Houston-based company that manufactures and repairs reusable plastic containers and wooden pallets, did not pay its employees time and one-half for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The company also did not maintain the records that they are required to keep under the law.
The investigations took place in the states of Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Utah on the case, according to DOL.
Back wages and civil money penalties have been paid in full, and the company has agreed to injunctive relief enjoining them from further violations of the FLSA.
A separate 2002 Wage and Hour Division investigation in Atlanta, Ga., found the company had violated FLSA, resulting in $30,538 in overtime back wages paid to 67 employees.
"The Department of Labor is a voice for working families, and I am committed to ensuring that employers comply with federal labor laws so workers can have confidence they will receive the compensation they've earned and deserve," said Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
New I-9 Form In Effect
From April 16, 2009, all employers should begin using the new updated I-9 form. Expired identity documents will no longer be accepted on the new form. This is the biggest difference between the new version and the previous version of the I-9 form.
The Department of Homeland Security wants to ensure that “documents presented for use in the Form I-9 process must be valid and reliably establish both identity and employment authorization.” This is what the USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) notes.
The newest I-9 form adds a number of documents to List A, including:
Foreign passports with machine-readable immigrant visas
Passports from the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) or
Passports from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)
Along with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI
Besides that, the new I-9 form also eliminates several documents from List A, items that establish both identity and employment authorization.
The new I-9 was originally slated to be used beginning February 2, 2009. However, the Obama Administration gave employers an extra month to adjust to the new document.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
California Has Its “Own FMLA Regulations”
The U.S. Department of Labor published new regulations governing the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The rules became effective on January 16, 2009.
California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) is called “California version of FMLA”. There are many similarities between CFRA and FMLA, but a HR professional should also know the differences between the two leave acts.
The new FMLA regulation can not be fully applied in California because California has its own separate statutory and regulatory scheme. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission, The California agency responsible for regulating CFRA, issued a statement and a chart comparing the two Acts and their regulations.
On November 17, 2008, the federal Department of Labor issued revised regulations interpreting the FMLA. These new regulations differ from comparable regulations that the Commission had issued interpreting the California Family Rights Act. The Commission plans to revise its CFRA regulations. It has made a comparison between the revised FMLA regulations and the Commission’s CFRA regulations.”
Although we do not have a clear idea when the new CFRA regulations will be proposed, and we do not know whether the new regulation will make a closer step to the new FMLA, there is one thing for sure: Employers must of course comply with both state and federal law.
The following are some examples.
Domestic Partners. CFRA covers leave to care for “spouses” in the traditional sense of the word and registered domestic spouses, while in FMLA registered domestic spouses are excluded.
Military Leave. FMLA now includes 26 weeks of leave to care for injured family members in the military, and 12 weeks of leave for “qualified exigencies” related to certain military deployments. California does not offer this right, although in a separate statute spouses of certain military members may take leaves.
Overtime. Under FMLA, overtime hours that would have been worked but for leave can be deducted from the 12 week leave entitlement. The employer has no such expression under CFRA.
California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) is called “California version of FMLA”. There are many similarities between CFRA and FMLA, but a HR professional should also know the differences between the two leave acts.
The new FMLA regulation can not be fully applied in California because California has its own separate statutory and regulatory scheme. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission, The California agency responsible for regulating CFRA, issued a statement and a chart comparing the two Acts and their regulations.
On November 17, 2008, the federal Department of Labor issued revised regulations interpreting the FMLA. These new regulations differ from comparable regulations that the Commission had issued interpreting the California Family Rights Act. The Commission plans to revise its CFRA regulations. It has made a comparison between the revised FMLA regulations and the Commission’s CFRA regulations.”
Although we do not have a clear idea when the new CFRA regulations will be proposed, and we do not know whether the new regulation will make a closer step to the new FMLA, there is one thing for sure: Employers must of course comply with both state and federal law.
The following are some examples.
Domestic Partners. CFRA covers leave to care for “spouses” in the traditional sense of the word and registered domestic spouses, while in FMLA registered domestic spouses are excluded.
Military Leave. FMLA now includes 26 weeks of leave to care for injured family members in the military, and 12 weeks of leave for “qualified exigencies” related to certain military deployments. California does not offer this right, although in a separate statute spouses of certain military members may take leaves.
Overtime. Under FMLA, overtime hours that would have been worked but for leave can be deducted from the 12 week leave entitlement. The employer has no such expression under CFRA.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
ARRA for Employee’s Health Care
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the economic stimulus legislation, were approved by the House of Representatives and Senate On Friday, February 13, 2009.
On April 3, 2009, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published Implementing Guidance for ARRA. This is the second installment of detailed government-wide guidance for carrying out programs and activities enacted in the Recovery Act.
Employers’ obligations under COBRA have been significantly increased by ARRA.
Employees who have terminated their employment between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 are entitled to continue their heath care coverage through COBRA. What those employees need do is pay 35 percent of their premiums for up to nine months. Employers are obligated to pay for the remaining 65 percent. Apparently employer has to pay some money; however, they do not have any loss as they can deduct their cost from federal payroll taxes. Employers must immediately comply with the law by providing notice to eligible individuals, collecting 35% of the premiums from the employees, paying 65% themselves, and filing quarterly tax returns claiming a credit for the 65% subsidized amount.
ARRA mandates that plans notify certain current and former participants and beneficiaries about the premium reduction. Employers should send notices to employees who are involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.
The Department created model notices to help plans and individuals comply with these requirements. Each model notice is designed for a particular group of qualified beneficiaries and contains information to help satisfy ARRA’s notice provisions. The forms were posted on the DOL website on March 19, 200
On April 3, 2009, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published Implementing Guidance for ARRA. This is the second installment of detailed government-wide guidance for carrying out programs and activities enacted in the Recovery Act.
Employers’ obligations under COBRA have been significantly increased by ARRA.
Employees who have terminated their employment between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 are entitled to continue their heath care coverage through COBRA. What those employees need do is pay 35 percent of their premiums for up to nine months. Employers are obligated to pay for the remaining 65 percent. Apparently employer has to pay some money; however, they do not have any loss as they can deduct their cost from federal payroll taxes. Employers must immediately comply with the law by providing notice to eligible individuals, collecting 35% of the premiums from the employees, paying 65% themselves, and filing quarterly tax returns claiming a credit for the 65% subsidized amount.
ARRA mandates that plans notify certain current and former participants and beneficiaries about the premium reduction. Employers should send notices to employees who are involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.
The Department created model notices to help plans and individuals comply with these requirements. Each model notice is designed for a particular group of qualified beneficiaries and contains information to help satisfy ARRA’s notice provisions. The forms were posted on the DOL website on March 19, 200
Monday, April 06, 2009
Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Unemployment Extension
On March 27, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation extending unemployment insurance benefits for jobless Californians. To those employees who meet certain criteria, California's unemployment insurance benefits will be extended an additional 20 weeks, including the exhaustion of the 59 weeks of federal/state benefits previously available – 26 weeks of state benefits plus federal extensions totaling 33 weeks. Thus, some jobless residents now will be eligible for up to 79 weeks of aid.
Only jobless Californians whose existing benefits expired after Feb. 21 are eligible for the 20-week extension. The money will be an immediate lifeline for more than 75,000 California workers whose benefits would have run out on April 11. It is estimated that by the end of the year, about 400,000 additional laid-off workers should get the extra help. Officials expect the money to be spent on buying food and paying rent as the state's unemployment rate tops 10 percent.
"Accessing billions of dollars in federal unemployment aid not only will keep families in their homes, it's going to provide a quick boost to withering local economies and small businesses," said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.
Only jobless Californians whose existing benefits expired after Feb. 21 are eligible for the 20-week extension. The money will be an immediate lifeline for more than 75,000 California workers whose benefits would have run out on April 11. It is estimated that by the end of the year, about 400,000 additional laid-off workers should get the extra help. Officials expect the money to be spent on buying food and paying rent as the state's unemployment rate tops 10 percent.
"Accessing billions of dollars in federal unemployment aid not only will keep families in their homes, it's going to provide a quick boost to withering local economies and small businesses," said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
New Due Diligence under Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Since the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act release, when buying or merging with a new company, companies will have to add new step in their due diligence. Under the law, employees can sue for wage discrimination.
Now, the U.S. Senate has passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, and President Obama has signed it into law. According to the new act, it allows for discrimination suits beyond the old 180-day deadline. This means that employers must retain records on the basis of compensation decisions far longer for defending against a possible lawsuit.
According to President, he intended “to send a clear message” by signing the bill: “That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it’s not just unfair and illegal – it’s bad for business – to pay someone less because of their gender, or their age, race, ethnicity, religion, or disability.” It was the first bill the new President signed following his January 20 inauguration.
However, the act is opposed by both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
Now, the U.S. Senate has passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, and President Obama has signed it into law. According to the new act, it allows for discrimination suits beyond the old 180-day deadline. This means that employers must retain records on the basis of compensation decisions far longer for defending against a possible lawsuit.
According to President, he intended “to send a clear message” by signing the bill: “That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it’s not just unfair and illegal – it’s bad for business – to pay someone less because of their gender, or their age, race, ethnicity, religion, or disability.” It was the first bill the new President signed following his January 20 inauguration.
However, the act is opposed by both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
COBRA Subsidy News
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Stimulus Plan Includes COBRA Subsidy
Obama administration’s stimulus plan offered COBRA subsidies and was signed into law on February 17, 2009. Many employers have questions about the subsidies. The subsidy applies beginning March 1, 2009.
The ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) included a provision to subsidize extended health insurance coverage under COBRA for some eligible employees. These eligible employees referred to as “assistance eligible individual” (AEI) is laid off through no fault of his or her own, or is a dependent of a laid-off employee.
According to the ARRA, the COBRA subsidy does not apply to flexible spending accounts. The maximum time for each assistance eligible individual is nine months. Employee can get 35 percent of the COBRA premium. Every AEI qualifies for the subsidy. However, according to the individual tax returns, high-income individuals and their spouses will be required to repay the subsidy.
If the AEI does qualify as a high-income individual her or she may waive the subsidy voluntarily and must pay 100 percent of the COBRA premium.
The ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) included a provision to subsidize extended health insurance coverage under COBRA for some eligible employees. These eligible employees referred to as “assistance eligible individual” (AEI) is laid off through no fault of his or her own, or is a dependent of a laid-off employee.
According to the ARRA, the COBRA subsidy does not apply to flexible spending accounts. The maximum time for each assistance eligible individual is nine months. Employee can get 35 percent of the COBRA premium. Every AEI qualifies for the subsidy. However, according to the individual tax returns, high-income individuals and their spouses will be required to repay the subsidy.
If the AEI does qualify as a high-income individual her or she may waive the subsidy voluntarily and must pay 100 percent of the COBRA premium.
New Oregon Food Server Break Law
Recently, BOLI (Bureau of Labor and Industries) updated the state meal break regulations. The Oregon BOLI issued new regulations that food servers can opt to waive their unpaid meal breaks, but not their paid rest breaks. Tipped food service workers in Oregon who are over 18 years of age may opt out of their required 30-minute meal breaks if they like.
According to the new regulations, employers cannot require an employee to waive breaks, or force employees to do so. Either the employer or the employee can revoke the waiver at any time by written notice. However, the employee can be excused from taking the meal breaks if the employer has a signed, non-revoked waiver on file.
In addition, when it would be an undue hardship for an employee to be relieved from all work duties for the 30 minute meal break, employers are permitted to always waive the required meal breaks. If employers want to use the exception, they must issue a BOLI waiver to all affected employees by March 16, 2009.
The break must be longer than 20 minutes and shorter than 30 minutes. The employee must be relieved of all work duties during the breaks. However, the law does not affect the requirement that an employee must have 10 minute uninterrupted rest breaks for each 4-hour work period.
In the U.S., there are nineteen states requiring meal breaks for virtually all employees. Oregon is one of these states. California and Illinois are also included.
According to the new regulations, employers cannot require an employee to waive breaks, or force employees to do so. Either the employer or the employee can revoke the waiver at any time by written notice. However, the employee can be excused from taking the meal breaks if the employer has a signed, non-revoked waiver on file.
In addition, when it would be an undue hardship for an employee to be relieved from all work duties for the 30 minute meal break, employers are permitted to always waive the required meal breaks. If employers want to use the exception, they must issue a BOLI waiver to all affected employees by March 16, 2009.
The break must be longer than 20 minutes and shorter than 30 minutes. The employee must be relieved of all work duties during the breaks. However, the law does not affect the requirement that an employee must have 10 minute uninterrupted rest breaks for each 4-hour work period.
In the U.S., there are nineteen states requiring meal breaks for virtually all employees. Oregon is one of these states. California and Illinois are also included.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
New Cafeteria Plan Rule
New federal regulations regarding cafeteria benefit plans are likely to be published within the next 30 to 60 days, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury. The new regulations show the information that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has issued formally or informally over the past 20 years.
The controversial non-discrimination clause in the regulations will not be finalized until President Barack Obama takes office. There is also one change in the cafeteria benefits plan that it will allow employers to add COBRA benefits to the options available, which is typically used by employees who become old enough for Medicare.
The new cafeteria plan regulates that an employee who changes jobs can even be reimbursed by the new plan for COBRA coverage under the old employer’s insurance policy. The COBRA premium is covered, because it is a valid healthcare expense, and the employee paid it during the appropriate year. The latest regulations may not go into effect until January 1, 2010.
The controversial non-discrimination clause in the regulations will not be finalized until President Barack Obama takes office. There is also one change in the cafeteria benefits plan that it will allow employers to add COBRA benefits to the options available, which is typically used by employees who become old enough for Medicare.
The new cafeteria plan regulates that an employee who changes jobs can even be reimbursed by the new plan for COBRA coverage under the old employer’s insurance policy. The COBRA premium is covered, because it is a valid healthcare expense, and the employee paid it during the appropriate year. The latest regulations may not go into effect until January 1, 2010.
Monday, February 16, 2009
President Obama Signed 3 Pro-Labor Executive Orders
On January 30, 2009, President Obama signed 3 Pro-Labor Executive Orders that affect the rights of employees of federal contractors. He said the orders should "level the playing field" for labor unions in their struggles with management.
The first order, entitled “Economy in Government Contracting”, will prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers’ decisions about whether to form a union. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is responsible for issuing and implementing regulations pursuant to this executive order within 150 days from January 30, 2009.
The second order, “Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Law”, requires employers with federal contracts over $100,000 to inform their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This encourages collective bargaining, by posting a notice in the workplace. The order also reverses a Bush administration order, which required federal contractors to post a notice of an employee’s right to refuse to join a union (commonly referred to as the “Beck” Notice). The form and content of the notice of employee rights will be determined by the Secretary of Labor and will be the subject of a rule-making proceeding that will begin within 120 days from January 30, 2009.
The third order, “Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts”, requires federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change. The order requires all new contracts under the Service Contract Act to contain a mandate that new contractors offer positions to the non-supervisory employees of the contractor that have lost the federal contract. The Secretary of Labor and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council are responsible for issuing and implementing regulations pursuant to this executive order within 180 days from January 30, 2009.
Obama also used this occasion at the White House to announce formally a new White House task force on the problems of middle-class Americans to be chaired by Vice President Joe Bide.
The first order, entitled “Economy in Government Contracting”, will prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers’ decisions about whether to form a union. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is responsible for issuing and implementing regulations pursuant to this executive order within 150 days from January 30, 2009.
The second order, “Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Law”, requires employers with federal contracts over $100,000 to inform their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This encourages collective bargaining, by posting a notice in the workplace. The order also reverses a Bush administration order, which required federal contractors to post a notice of an employee’s right to refuse to join a union (commonly referred to as the “Beck” Notice). The form and content of the notice of employee rights will be determined by the Secretary of Labor and will be the subject of a rule-making proceeding that will begin within 120 days from January 30, 2009.
The third order, “Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts”, requires federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change. The order requires all new contracts under the Service Contract Act to contain a mandate that new contractors offer positions to the non-supervisory employees of the contractor that have lost the federal contract. The Secretary of Labor and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council are responsible for issuing and implementing regulations pursuant to this executive order within 180 days from January 30, 2009.
Obama also used this occasion at the White House to announce formally a new White House task force on the problems of middle-class Americans to be chaired by Vice President Joe Bide.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Exempt Employees Salary Reduction Regulations
The topic of salary reductions for exempt employees has become one of the latest, hottest HR topics. Many employers are faced with this problem. The employers must take certain precautions before they reduce exempt employees’ salaries in order to avoid breaking the law.
There is no question that reducing hours for hourly employees is one option to reduce payroll. For example, reducing weekly hours from 40 hours per week to 36 hours per week can reduce his or her payroll expenses by ten percent; however, that solution won’t work for salaried exempt employees. According to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an exempt employee must be paid full weekly wage, no matter how many or how few hours the employee works per week. Whether the exempt employee works 20 or 30 hours per week, 60 hours per week, he or she will still be paid the full weekly salary.
In order to justify the exempt employee’s salary reduction, it should be:
l Permanent
l Applied to an entire group or class of employees
l Not directly tied to a reduction in hours
Reducing an exempt employee’s salary when business is slow can change the exempt status of everyone in that job. For this reason, the employer should permanently present the salary reduction to employees. The salary reduction needs to remain in effect for a minimum of three months.
Reducing hours for exempt employees when salary is reduced is a grey area. The safest course of action is for the employer not to reduce the number of hours when salary is reduced. However, according to Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) when a reduction both in salary and hours for an entire class of exempt employees is part of a change in business tactics, the employees retain their exempt status.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 Release
President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 on January 29, 2009. This act was Obama’s first bill signed into law. The bill had passed the Senate on Thursday, January 22 by a vote of 61 to 36.
President Obama stated before the signing, “Lilly Ledbetter did not set out to be a trailblazer or a household name. She was just a good hard worker who did her job — and she did it well — for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work. Over the course of her career, she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits — losses that she still feels today.”
“I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it’s not just unfair and illegal — it’s bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, or their age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability,” the President said.
The bill was opposed by both SHRM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who claim it could have unintended consequence years from now, while supporters point out that the consequences only apply to employers who practice discrimination based on sex.
President Obama stated before the signing, “Lilly Ledbetter did not set out to be a trailblazer or a household name. She was just a good hard worker who did her job — and she did it well — for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work. Over the course of her career, she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits — losses that she still feels today.”
“I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it’s not just unfair and illegal — it’s bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, or their age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability,” the President said.
The bill was opposed by both SHRM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who claim it could have unintended consequence years from now, while supporters point out that the consequences only apply to employers who practice discrimination based on sex.
Friday, February 06, 2009
New York WARN Act
Effective February 1, 2009, employers in New York must give their employees more notice prior to layoffs.
In August 2008, Gov. David Patterson signed into law the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "NY WARN Act"), which imposes similar requirements on employers to those required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "Federal Act"), but there are some differences between the two.
According to the NY WARN ACT, the definition of "mass layoff" includes employment losses at a single site of employment that affect: (1) at least 25 full-time employees (compared with the 50 employee minimum of the Federal Act) as long as they represent at least 33 percent of the total active workforce; or (2) at least 250 full-time employees (compared with the 500 employee threshold of the Federal Act).
In addition, the Federal Act generally requires employers with 100 or more full-time employees to provide 60 days advance written notice regarding plant closures, plant relocation or mass layoffs to the affected employees' representative or, if none, to the affected employees themselves. The Federal Act also requires the employers to notify the state dislocated worker unit and the local government. However, based on the NY WARN Act, New York employers with 50 or more employees must provide such written notice 90 days in advance.
The NY WARN act is enforced by the state Commissioner of Labor, and any employer who violates the law may face civil penalties as well as back wage reimbursement.
In August 2008, Gov. David Patterson signed into law the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "NY WARN Act"), which imposes similar requirements on employers to those required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "Federal Act"), but there are some differences between the two.
According to the NY WARN ACT, the definition of "mass layoff" includes employment losses at a single site of employment that affect: (1) at least 25 full-time employees (compared with the 50 employee minimum of the Federal Act) as long as they represent at least 33 percent of the total active workforce; or (2) at least 250 full-time employees (compared with the 500 employee threshold of the Federal Act).
In addition, the Federal Act generally requires employers with 100 or more full-time employees to provide 60 days advance written notice regarding plant closures, plant relocation or mass layoffs to the affected employees' representative or, if none, to the affected employees themselves. The Federal Act also requires the employers to notify the state dislocated worker unit and the local government. However, based on the NY WARN Act, New York employers with 50 or more employees must provide such written notice 90 days in advance.
The NY WARN act is enforced by the state Commissioner of Labor, and any employer who violates the law may face civil penalties as well as back wage reimbursement.
Monday, February 02, 2009
2009 Federal Labor & Employment Law Legislative and Regulatory Update
2009 Federal Labor & Employment Law Legislative and Regulatory have been updated. The following is the most important updates in relation with disabilities.
ADA Amended
Disabilities Act was signed by post-president Bush on September 25th, which has been taken into effect on January 1, 2009.
Expanded Definition of Disabilities
Besides the existing regulations, the amendment adds it could potentially include conditions such as high blood pressure, asthma, and other conditions not traditionally viewed as disabilities, such as “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.” The new amendment is a substantial expansion for disabled workers under federal law.
Disregard of Mitigating Measures
U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that mitigating measures, such as prosthetic devices, should be taken into account when determining whether the workers are disabled. Now the amendment has overruled that.
Substantially Limits” Liberalized.
U.S. Supreme Court set that a disability must” substantially limit” a major life activity. The new amendment about this regulation although has not been finally released, we can tell the change may be beneficial to people.
ADA Amended
Disabilities Act was signed by post-president Bush on September 25th, which has been taken into effect on January 1, 2009.
Expanded Definition of Disabilities
Besides the existing regulations, the amendment adds it could potentially include conditions such as high blood pressure, asthma, and other conditions not traditionally viewed as disabilities, such as “functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.” The new amendment is a substantial expansion for disabled workers under federal law.
Disregard of Mitigating Measures
U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that mitigating measures, such as prosthetic devices, should be taken into account when determining whether the workers are disabled. Now the amendment has overruled that.
Substantially Limits” Liberalized.
U.S. Supreme Court set that a disability must” substantially limit” a major life activity. The new amendment about this regulation although has not been finally released, we can tell the change may be beneficial to people.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
New Jersey Minimum Wage Has Increased to $8.50 per Hour in 2009
In the report of the State of New Jersey Minimum Wage Advisory Commission, there is new policy about the minimum wage of New Jersey. In the report, the commission clearly states that the minimum wage of New Jersey has increased from $7.15 per hour to $8.50 per hour in 2009. The new policy had been taken effect on January 1, 2009.
The Commission also recommend that the minimum wage should be increased automatically from year to year based on the increase in the consumer price index. What’s more, the Commission also recommends that a minimum cash wage requirement for tipped workers should be set up.
It should be noted that the Commission had made recommendations in the Commission’s First Annual Report in 2007 for a minimum wage increase from $7.15 per hour to $8.25 per hour. However, its recommendations never were signed into law.
The Commission also recommend that the minimum wage should be increased automatically from year to year based on the increase in the consumer price index. What’s more, the Commission also recommends that a minimum cash wage requirement for tipped workers should be set up.
It should be noted that the Commission had made recommendations in the Commission’s First Annual Report in 2007 for a minimum wage increase from $7.15 per hour to $8.25 per hour. However, its recommendations never were signed into law.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Colorado Minimum Wage Increased to $7.28
Colorado has increased its minimum wage to $7.28 per hour from January 1, 2009.
For tipped employees, the minimum wage increased from $4.00 per hour to $4.26 per hour - no more than $3.02 can be used to offset the minimum wage.
In accordance with the Colorado Constitution, the state minimum wage is to be adjusted annually for inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index used for Colorado, and Colorado is one of about a dozen U.S. states where the minimum wage is adjusted for inflation every year.
For tipped employees, the minimum wage increased from $4.00 per hour to $4.26 per hour - no more than $3.02 can be used to offset the minimum wage.
In accordance with the Colorado Constitution, the state minimum wage is to be adjusted annually for inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index used for Colorado, and Colorado is one of about a dozen U.S. states where the minimum wage is adjusted for inflation every year.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Washington Increased Its Minimum Wage to $8.55
Washington has increased its minimum wage to $8.55 on January 1, 2009, increasing 48 cents compared with last year. The new act not only apply to non-agricultural jobs but agricultural jobs
With the updating this time, the minimum wage of Washington is still the highest minimum wage among all the states in United States.
Initiative 688, approved by voters in 1998, requires the Labor and Industrial adjust the minimum wage each year according to the changes in the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The Consumer Price Index cover the past 12 months ending on August 31. The mentioned index went by 5.9 percent during at the end of August 2008.
With the updating this time, the minimum wage of Washington is still the highest minimum wage among all the states in United States.
Initiative 688, approved by voters in 1998, requires the Labor and Industrial adjust the minimum wage each year according to the changes in the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The Consumer Price Index cover the past 12 months ending on August 31. The mentioned index went by 5.9 percent during at the end of August 2008.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Employers May Recover Wage Overpayments
Employers may occasionally overpay their employees based on an assumed amount of hours before the employees’ actual timesheets are submitted or processed.
Under such circumstances, may the employer recover the overpayment by taking a deduction from the next paycheck? In accordance with California law, the employers usually can’t make any deductions from their employees’ wages except for certain withholdings (such as taxes) or as authorized by the employees for medical or health benefits or pension plan contributions.
However, on November 25, 2008, the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) confirmed that employers may generally recover wage overpayments if they meet the following conditions:
(1) The deduction cannot cause the employee to earn less than the minimum wage. The deduction may not be taken if it would cause the employee to earn less than the minimum wage. The employer can only take an amount that would keep the employee earning at least minimum wage.
(2) The deduction must be expressly authorized by the employee in writing. According to Labor Code section 300, the DLSE has explained that only when the employee has specifically and voluntarily authorized the deduction in a written form before the deduction is taken, may the employer recover the overpayment. In addition, if the employee’s timesheet reflects fewer hours than he/she was actually paid, then only when the timesheet "expressly and voluntarily authorizes a specific prospective deduction," can it be qualified as a written authorization.
The deduction cannot be taken out of the employee’s final paycheck. The DLSE says that no deduction may be taken from the employee's final paycheck. In addition, under Labor Code section 203, if such a deduction is made, the employer can be liable for "waiting time" penalties of up to 30 days’ pay.
Under such circumstances, may the employer recover the overpayment by taking a deduction from the next paycheck? In accordance with California law, the employers usually can’t make any deductions from their employees’ wages except for certain withholdings (such as taxes) or as authorized by the employees for medical or health benefits or pension plan contributions.
However, on November 25, 2008, the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) confirmed that employers may generally recover wage overpayments if they meet the following conditions:
(1) The deduction cannot cause the employee to earn less than the minimum wage. The deduction may not be taken if it would cause the employee to earn less than the minimum wage. The employer can only take an amount that would keep the employee earning at least minimum wage.
(2) The deduction must be expressly authorized by the employee in writing. According to Labor Code section 300, the DLSE has explained that only when the employee has specifically and voluntarily authorized the deduction in a written form before the deduction is taken, may the employer recover the overpayment. In addition, if the employee’s timesheet reflects fewer hours than he/she was actually paid, then only when the timesheet "expressly and voluntarily authorizes a specific prospective deduction," can it be qualified as a written authorization.
The deduction cannot be taken out of the employee’s final paycheck. The DLSE says that no deduction may be taken from the employee's final paycheck. In addition, under Labor Code section 203, if such a deduction is made, the employer can be liable for "waiting time" penalties of up to 30 days’ pay.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
13 States' Labor Law Poster Update in 2009
The state of Arizona has increased its minimum wage from $6.90 per hour to $7.25 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Colorado has increased its minimum wage from $7.02 per hour to $7.28 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Connecticut has increased its minimum wage from current $7.65 per hour to $8.00 per hour effective January 1, 2009; and will increase the minimum wage again to $8.25 effective January 1, 2010.
The state of Florida has increased the minimum wage from current $6.79 per hour to $7.21 per hour effective January 1, 2009. After July 23, 2009, Florida will go by the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 to replace Florida's wage.
The state of Louisiana has updated their Earned Income Credit posting to include 2008 gross income reporting information effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Missouri has increased its minimum wage from $6.65 per hour to $7.05 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Montana has increased its minimum wage from $6.55 per hour to $6.90 per hour effective January 1, 2009, and will increase the rate again to $6.90 effective July 24, 2009.
The state of New Jersey has created a new, required Paid Family Leave Insurance poster (which will not replace the current NJ FMLA poster), effective January 1, 2009.
The state of New York has update its Licensure and Employment of Persons Prev. Convicted posting to reflect the requirement that employers must post a copy of Article 23-A of the correction law relating to the employment of persons with a criminal conviction in an accessible location at the workplace, effective February 1, 2009.
The state of Ohio has increased its minimum wage from $7.00 per hour to $7.30 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Oregon has increased its minimum wage rate from $7.95 per hour to $8.40 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Vermont has increased its minimum wage from $7.68 per hour to $8.06 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Washington has increased its minimum wage from $8.07 to $8.55 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Colorado has increased its minimum wage from $7.02 per hour to $7.28 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Connecticut has increased its minimum wage from current $7.65 per hour to $8.00 per hour effective January 1, 2009; and will increase the minimum wage again to $8.25 effective January 1, 2010.
The state of Florida has increased the minimum wage from current $6.79 per hour to $7.21 per hour effective January 1, 2009. After July 23, 2009, Florida will go by the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 to replace Florida's wage.
The state of Louisiana has updated their Earned Income Credit posting to include 2008 gross income reporting information effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Missouri has increased its minimum wage from $6.65 per hour to $7.05 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Montana has increased its minimum wage from $6.55 per hour to $6.90 per hour effective January 1, 2009, and will increase the rate again to $6.90 effective July 24, 2009.
The state of New Jersey has created a new, required Paid Family Leave Insurance poster (which will not replace the current NJ FMLA poster), effective January 1, 2009.
The state of New York has update its Licensure and Employment of Persons Prev. Convicted posting to reflect the requirement that employers must post a copy of Article 23-A of the correction law relating to the employment of persons with a criminal conviction in an accessible location at the workplace, effective February 1, 2009.
The state of Ohio has increased its minimum wage from $7.00 per hour to $7.30 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Oregon has increased its minimum wage rate from $7.95 per hour to $8.40 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Vermont has increased its minimum wage from $7.68 per hour to $8.06 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
The state of Washington has increased its minimum wage from $8.07 to $8.55 per hour effective January 1, 2009.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Tips for Safe in Workplace Holiday Parties
In the workplace, employees and employers often get together to celebrate special events. If the drinks include alcohol, the potential for unfortunate consequences greatly increases. If alcohol is used improperly, it may expose employers to liability under tort, workers' compensation or other laws.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA), each year employers loset more than $9 billion as a result of accidents by employees who are under the influence of alcohol. Employers should check the Liquor liability laws in their state.
Many employers are cutting back on holiday parties this year as a cost-saving measure. The U.S. Department of Labor offers a series of tips for workplace celebrations to reduce the risk for employers. These guidelines include extending the workplace substance abuse policy under any work-related situations.
There is also good news for employers. They can protect their businesses by educating employees about the harmful effects of impaired driving. By doing so, employers do more than just safeguard their business assets—they contribute to the nationwide campaign to eliminate and reduce a preventable crime and play an important part in making their communities safer for their friends and families and those of their employees.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA), each year employers loset more than $9 billion as a result of accidents by employees who are under the influence of alcohol. Employers should check the Liquor liability laws in their state.
Many employers are cutting back on holiday parties this year as a cost-saving measure. The U.S. Department of Labor offers a series of tips for workplace celebrations to reduce the risk for employers. These guidelines include extending the workplace substance abuse policy under any work-related situations.
There is also good news for employers. They can protect their businesses by educating employees about the harmful effects of impaired driving. By doing so, employers do more than just safeguard their business assets—they contribute to the nationwide campaign to eliminate and reduce a preventable crime and play an important part in making their communities safer for their friends and families and those of their employees.
Monday, December 15, 2008
IRS Announces Mileage Rate For 2009
On Nov. 24, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that as of Jan. 1, 2009, the standard mileage rates for business miles driven will be 55 cents per mile.
The business mileage rate was 50.5 cents in the first half of 2008, and 58.5 cents in the second half, which was an adjustment based on rising gas prices.
The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating a vehicle. However, the rate cannot be used for any vehicle used for hire or for more than four vehicles used simultaneously.
Under Labor Code section 2802, California employers need to utilize the IRS mileage rate to reimburse employees for miles driven for business purposes. If faced with a claim for failure to reimburse expenses, the burden would be on the employer to prove that its mileage reimbursement rate adequately covered all of the employee's actual costs of operating a vehicle for employment purposes.
Employers should review their mileage reimbursement policies to stay in compliance with the law.
The business mileage rate was 50.5 cents in the first half of 2008, and 58.5 cents in the second half, which was an adjustment based on rising gas prices.
The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating a vehicle. However, the rate cannot be used for any vehicle used for hire or for more than four vehicles used simultaneously.
Under Labor Code section 2802, California employers need to utilize the IRS mileage rate to reimburse employees for miles driven for business purposes. If faced with a claim for failure to reimburse expenses, the burden would be on the employer to prove that its mileage reimbursement rate adequately covered all of the employee's actual costs of operating a vehicle for employment purposes.
Employers should review their mileage reimbursement policies to stay in compliance with the law.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
2009 Federal Healthcare Regulations
According to a recent news release by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM), the U.S. Department of Labor has issued final rules under the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act of 1996. The new regulations, taking effect on December 19, 2008, apply to health insurance plans issued on or after January 1, 2009.
The rules were issued in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department. They apply to group health plans and health insurers, including businesses that are self-insured. The new rules from the U.S. Department of Labor regulate, among other things, the length of time mothers and newborn babies may stay in the hospital.
Under the “general rule”, employers can restrict the hospital stay after a cesarean to 96 hours – but cannot require that mothers leave the hospital sooner. The new federal regulations do not require that new mothers stay in the hospital that long. The regulations contain a long list of restrictions to ensure that an early discharge does not endanger the health of mother or infant. In particular, the insurance company cannot provide financial incentives to healthcare providers to require mothers leave the hospital earlier.
The rules were issued in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department. They apply to group health plans and health insurers, including businesses that are self-insured. The new rules from the U.S. Department of Labor regulate, among other things, the length of time mothers and newborn babies may stay in the hospital.
Under the “general rule”, employers can restrict the hospital stay after a cesarean to 96 hours – but cannot require that mothers leave the hospital sooner. The new federal regulations do not require that new mothers stay in the hospital that long. The regulations contain a long list of restrictions to ensure that an early discharge does not endanger the health of mother or infant. In particular, the insurance company cannot provide financial incentives to healthcare providers to require mothers leave the hospital earlier.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Arizona Minimum Wage Will Increase to $7.25 per hour Jan. 1, 2009
According to the Industrial Commission of Arizona, the minimum wage in Arizona will increase to $7.25 per hour from $6.90 per hour. The new wage will take effect in January 1, 2009.
In order to cooperate with Arizona’s Minimum Wage Initiative, the Industrial Commission is supposed to adjust the state’s minimum wage every year. According to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 23-363(B), the minimum wage shall be increased on January 1, 2008 and 2009 as a result of the increasing of the cost of living.
The Consumer Price Index is a good mirror to reflect the cost of living, The increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase as of August of the immediately preceding year over the level as of August of the previous year of the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers, U.S. City, All Items) or its successor index as published by the Department of Labor or its successor agency, with the minimum wage increase rounded to the nearest five cents”.
Based on the increase of Department of labor’s Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers from 2007 to 2008, if the initiative requirement that all increase must be rounded to the nearest five cents, the new minimum wage if Arizona will be $7.25 per hour in 2009. It is expected that the minimum wage in 2009 of Arizona will continue to exceed the federal minimum wage through the first half of 2009.
In order to cooperate with Arizona’s Minimum Wage Initiative, the Industrial Commission is supposed to adjust the state’s minimum wage every year. According to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 23-363(B), the minimum wage shall be increased on January 1, 2008 and 2009 as a result of the increasing of the cost of living.
The Consumer Price Index is a good mirror to reflect the cost of living, The increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase as of August of the immediately preceding year over the level as of August of the previous year of the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers, U.S. City, All Items) or its successor index as published by the Department of Labor or its successor agency, with the minimum wage increase rounded to the nearest five cents”.
Based on the increase of Department of labor’s Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers from 2007 to 2008, if the initiative requirement that all increase must be rounded to the nearest five cents, the new minimum wage if Arizona will be $7.25 per hour in 2009. It is expected that the minimum wage in 2009 of Arizona will continue to exceed the federal minimum wage through the first half of 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)