Oxymorons make me laugh. I can't help it. Jumbo shrimp. Authentic replicate. Instant classic. Compassionate attorney. Wait. . .
The newest one to add to the list, though, may not be a laughing matter. Mandatory flexibility. Heard about it? Congress has, and is working on implementing a law which would require employers to engage in discussions with employees with requests are received to alter work schedules, work locations and work hours. The law would put a framework together for this interaction, complete with deadlines for the employer to follow and requiring a written reason if an employee's request is denied.
Is this another attempt at a solution looking for a problem, a la GINA? I doubt any of you would close your door to an employee seeking to make a request. You may not grant it, but you would at least listen to the reasoning before making a decision.
So we shall wait and see what is in store for mandatory flexibility. It appears to be a definite maybe that it will pass.
Happy stretching!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Dizzy
As Laura reported in her recent blog on July 21, 2009, it appears that the ‘No-Match’ rules may never see the light of day.
The history of this rulemaking effort can be dizzying, but here’s an attempt to reveal the significance of this decision by the Obama administration to eliminate the confusion:
First, we all know that federal law prohibits the knowing employment of a foreign individual who is not authorized to work in the U.S. If, when hiring any new employee, the employer sends in a W-2 with a SSN that does not match the Social Security Administration’s records, the SSA will send back a letter notifying the employer that the records do not match. In August 2007, a proposed regulation from the Department of Homeland Security implied that simply receiving one of these ‘No-Match’ letters from the SSA could be constructive knowledge that the employer had hired an undocumented worker.
Now there may be many reasons why there is no ‘match’ in SSNs, including typographical errors and name changes, but under the regulations, an employer receiving a ‘No-Match’ letter had to immediately undertake a number of procedures to prove that it had not knowingly hired an undocumented worker (known as ‘safe-harbor’ procedures).
The same month that the final rule was issued, suit was filed in a California federal court to prevent enforcement of the rule. The Department of Homeland Security took the opportunity to revise the rule, but the revised rules did nothing to change the ‘safe harbor’ procedures. A preliminary injunction was granted by the court and the rule has yet to be enforced.
On August 19, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed a new rule rescinding the previous rule and reinstating the language of the rule as it existed before 2007. Comments on this proposed rule will be accepted until September 18, 2009. Expect the new rule to be published shortly thereafter.
So where does that leave us now? Stay tuned for more ideas… (See Laura’s July 21, 2009 blog for a hint).
The history of this rulemaking effort can be dizzying, but here’s an attempt to reveal the significance of this decision by the Obama administration to eliminate the confusion:
First, we all know that federal law prohibits the knowing employment of a foreign individual who is not authorized to work in the U.S. If, when hiring any new employee, the employer sends in a W-2 with a SSN that does not match the Social Security Administration’s records, the SSA will send back a letter notifying the employer that the records do not match. In August 2007, a proposed regulation from the Department of Homeland Security implied that simply receiving one of these ‘No-Match’ letters from the SSA could be constructive knowledge that the employer had hired an undocumented worker.
Now there may be many reasons why there is no ‘match’ in SSNs, including typographical errors and name changes, but under the regulations, an employer receiving a ‘No-Match’ letter had to immediately undertake a number of procedures to prove that it had not knowingly hired an undocumented worker (known as ‘safe-harbor’ procedures).
The same month that the final rule was issued, suit was filed in a California federal court to prevent enforcement of the rule. The Department of Homeland Security took the opportunity to revise the rule, but the revised rules did nothing to change the ‘safe harbor’ procedures. A preliminary injunction was granted by the court and the rule has yet to be enforced.
On August 19, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed a new rule rescinding the previous rule and reinstating the language of the rule as it existed before 2007. Comments on this proposed rule will be accepted until September 18, 2009. Expect the new rule to be published shortly thereafter.
So where does that leave us now? Stay tuned for more ideas… (See Laura’s July 21, 2009 blog for a hint).
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
EEO-1 Survey
Just a reminder: if you are subject to EEO-1 filings, your deadline to file is September 30, 2009. You can use any payroll period between July and September as the data for your filing.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
You have reached your destination!
Just a quick reminder that the minimum wage under Fair Labor Standards Act reached its final destination, for now, of $7.25 per hour. You may recall that the minimum wage was set to be increased in three phases a couple of years ago. This last increase, effective July 24, 2009, marks the final installment in that amendment.
A new poster is available for downloading here.
If you currently have the poster which shows the three increases in minimum wage, you can continue to use that version as well.
A new poster is available for downloading here.
If you currently have the poster which shows the three increases in minimum wage, you can continue to use that version as well.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
No match no more. . . maybe
President Obama's administration recently announced that it intended to rescind the No-Match regulations which the Department of Homeland Security under President Bush had sought unsuccessfully to implement. Rather than focus on individuals, it appears that the DHS will turn its efforts to utilizing the E-Verify system for employers with federal contracts and subcontracts. But the No-Match regulations are not toast yet--the Senate has attempted to make rescission more difficult by proposing a bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds to eliminate the regulations.
Employers should continue to use best practices when hiring. If you have a reliable and strong system in place now, you will be better positioned to respond to whatever regulations might be waiting.
Happy hiring!
Employers should continue to use best practices when hiring. If you have a reliable and strong system in place now, you will be better positioned to respond to whatever regulations might be waiting.
Happy hiring!
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
"Govern yourself accordingly..."
This is a familiar phrase typically used by attorneys when putting a party on 'notice' that his or her legal rights are about to be affected by an upcoming event or legal proceeding.
This seems to be an appropriate phrase in light of a recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration. In a News Release by the DHS dated July 1, 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - ("ICE" - the immigration enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) - announced the launch of a new initiative to significantly increase the number of audits it will perform on employer’s records. An ICE audit will scrutinize whether an employer has properly documented its employees' authorization to work in the U.S.
[This documentation is reflected on your 'I-9 Form'. Generally, every employer is required to properly complete an I-9 Form for each employee. Failure to properly complete the form may result in significant fines and penalties. If you have not conducted a 'self-audit' of your I-9 Forms recently, we can help.]
Just how significant does ‘significant’ mean? In one day, (July 2nd), ICE issued Notices of Inspection to 652 businesses around the country. By comparison, only 503 Notices were issued for the entire 2008 fiscal year!
This is announced as a new “first step in ICE’s long-term strategy to address and deter illegal employment” by reducing the demand for undocumented workers. This shift in focus means that ICE is re-directing its resources to be more vigilant in its audits and investigation of U.S. employers.
ICE has sent a warning message to all employers that they will be watching more closely than ever for proper documentation of your employees. ICE has put you on notice. Govern yourselves accordingly….
This seems to be an appropriate phrase in light of a recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration. In a News Release by the DHS dated July 1, 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - ("ICE" - the immigration enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) - announced the launch of a new initiative to significantly increase the number of audits it will perform on employer’s records. An ICE audit will scrutinize whether an employer has properly documented its employees' authorization to work in the U.S.
[This documentation is reflected on your 'I-9 Form'. Generally, every employer is required to properly complete an I-9 Form for each employee. Failure to properly complete the form may result in significant fines and penalties. If you have not conducted a 'self-audit' of your I-9 Forms recently, we can help.]
Just how significant does ‘significant’ mean? In one day, (July 2nd), ICE issued Notices of Inspection to 652 businesses around the country. By comparison, only 503 Notices were issued for the entire 2008 fiscal year!
This is announced as a new “first step in ICE’s long-term strategy to address and deter illegal employment” by reducing the demand for undocumented workers. This shift in focus means that ICE is re-directing its resources to be more vigilant in its audits and investigation of U.S. employers.
ICE has sent a warning message to all employers that they will be watching more closely than ever for proper documentation of your employees. ICE has put you on notice. Govern yourselves accordingly….
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Have we met before?
A familiar face is back on the legislative block. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is once again making its way through the House of Representatives. This time, though, the bipartisan support for the law is greater than before. When it was last introduced in 2007, it passed the house after being watered-down and then stalled in the Senate.
The Act, as currently written, would prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in the workplace. It does not go so far as to require companies to extend employee benefits to partners of employees, and military and religious exemptions are present.
Stay tuned--we surely haven't heard the last on this one.
The Act, as currently written, would prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in the workplace. It does not go so far as to require companies to extend employee benefits to partners of employees, and military and religious exemptions are present.
Stay tuned--we surely haven't heard the last on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)