By Bill Leonard
Two weeks after Congress passed legislation containing the first expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) since 1993, President Bush announced his intentions to veto the bill.
On Dec. 14, 2007, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), which included a provision that would have created unpaid leave benefits for individuals who provide care to wounded U.S. soldiers and for family members of military personnel and reservists whose duties change because of call-ups or troop redeployments.
From all indications, it appeared that the president would sign the measure, which was part of a larger policy bill. But in a surprise move on Dec. 28, 2007, White House Press Secretary Scott Stanzel issued a statement saying that Bush planned to veto the measure because of concerns with an unrelated provision. This would mark the second time in three months that Congress has passed legislation with a provision granting new benefits for families of military personnel only to have the president veto the bill.
The president vetoed the re-authorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (H.R. 976) on Oct. 3, 2007, and, after Congress failed to override the veto, supporters of the FMLA military leave expansion moved to attach the provision to H.R. 1585.
The White House’s problem with H.R. 1585 centered on lawsuits brought against the Iraqi government and has nothing to do with the FMLA provision. Bush has stated that he supports the leave expansion for families and caregivers of military personnel.
In the press statement, Stanzel said the president objected to a provision that would allow U.S. citizens and businesses to file suit and freeze assets of the Iraqi government for misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime. Democratic leaders in Congress immediately criticized the veto threat, saying that White House officials waited too long to voice their concerns with the bill.
“It is unfortunate that the president will not sign this critical legislation,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a joint written statement. “Instead, we understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed.”
H.R. 1585, which passed both houses of Congress by wide margins, did appear to be veto-proof barring a change of heart by large numbers of legislators. The Senate voted 90-3 to pass the bill, while the House approval vote was 370-49. It takes a two-thirds majority from each chamber to override a veto
The overwhelming bipartisan support does raise the possibility of an override, but further action on the legislation won’t happen until mid-January at the earliest, when Congress is set to reconvene after the holidays.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Electronic Filing of your Tax Return
According to the experts, the earliest that you will be able to e-file your tax return this year will be February 4, 2008. The IRS cautions that refunds may be delayed for several weeks.
Hopefully you weren't counting on those refunds to pay your credit cards from too much Christmas spending!
Hopefully you weren't counting on those refunds to pay your credit cards from too much Christmas spending!
Good News for Employers
Budget battles on Capitol Hill are as common a holiday ritual as bell-ringers, but this year Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and a former U.S. secretary of education, has added a new twist.
After the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the Salvation Army for its English-only policy in April 2007, Alexander sponsored an amendment to H.R. 3093, an appropriations bill that would fund the EEOC, in an attempt to stop the EEOC from challenging English-only policies. The Senate and House approved the bill with Alexander’s amendment intact before an 11th-hour outcry from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Not only did Congress fix the Alternative Minimum Tax for another year saving us all thousands of dollars, but now employers won't be sued by the EEOC for asking their employees to speak English in America!!
Who says Congress does nothing???
After the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the Salvation Army for its English-only policy in April 2007, Alexander sponsored an amendment to H.R. 3093, an appropriations bill that would fund the EEOC, in an attempt to stop the EEOC from challenging English-only policies. The Senate and House approved the bill with Alexander’s amendment intact before an 11th-hour outcry from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Not only did Congress fix the Alternative Minimum Tax for another year saving us all thousands of dollars, but now employers won't be sued by the EEOC for asking their employees to speak English in America!!
Who says Congress does nothing???
Friday, December 21, 2007
Year End Tax Reminders
Remember the rules for substantiating charitable contributions
as you do your year-end giving. Starting this year, donors are required
to document ANY cash donations they make to churches or other charities,
no matter how small. That means having a canceled check, a bank record
or receipt with the group's name and donation amount. A log isn't enough.
If you made your donations via payroll deduction, a pay stub or W-2 form
listing donated amounts and a pledge card with the charity's name are OK.
Check your flexible spending account. You have to use it up
by Dec. 31 if your employer still hasn't adopted the 2½-month grace period
that the Revenue Service permits. Any leftover amounts are forfeited.
Mail checks for deductible items this year to ensure a write-off
for 2007. You get the deduction even if the checks don't clear until Jan. If you charge deductible items, take note of some tricky rules:
1) For charges made with a retail store credit card, you are allowed
to claim the deduction only in the tax year in which you pay the bill.
2) For transactions with a bank credit card, you take the deduction
in the year that the item was charged, even if you pay the bill next year.
Source: Kiplinger
as you do your year-end giving. Starting this year, donors are required
to document ANY cash donations they make to churches or other charities,
no matter how small. That means having a canceled check, a bank record
or receipt with the group's name and donation amount. A log isn't enough.
If you made your donations via payroll deduction, a pay stub or W-2 form
listing donated amounts and a pledge card with the charity's name are OK.
Check your flexible spending account. You have to use it up
by Dec. 31 if your employer still hasn't adopted the 2½-month grace period
that the Revenue Service permits. Any leftover amounts are forfeited.
Mail checks for deductible items this year to ensure a write-off
for 2007. You get the deduction even if the checks don't clear until Jan. If you charge deductible items, take note of some tricky rules:
1) For charges made with a retail store credit card, you are allowed
to claim the deduction only in the tax year in which you pay the bill.
2) For transactions with a bank credit card, you take the deduction
in the year that the item was charged, even if you pay the bill next year.
Source: Kiplinger
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Congress Fixes the AMT
More than 20 million taxpayers will escape the alternative minimum tax this year, thanks to a stopgap measure Congress approved Wednesday. But lawmakers waited so late in the year to vote that many early filers could have to wait until March to get their refunds.
About 4 million taxpayers owed the AMT in 2006. As a result of the temporary fix, about the same number of taxpayers will owe the AMT for 2007, says Clint Stretch, managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte Tax in Washington.
The AMT is a parallel tax system that eliminates many popular deductions and credits, resulting in a higher tax bill. It was originally intended to prevent wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes and deductions to avoid paying any taxes. But because it was never indexed to inflation, it's gradually expanded to ensnare even middle-class taxpayers who live in high-tax states or have many children.
Ordinarily, the IRS starts processing tax returns in mid-January. But the schedule will be delayed this time because the IRS will need about seven weeks to reprogram its computers to reflect changes in the tax law.
That means millions of taxpayers who file their returns in late January and early February will likely end up waiting four weeks longer than usual for their refunds, says Chrys Sullivan, assistant vice president for client services at H&R Block, (HRB) the nation's largest tax-preparation chain. Taxpayers who file electronically usually receive their refunds in about two weeks.
IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said Wednesday that it's too soon to estimate how many refunds will be delayed or how long the delays will last. The IRS "will do everything in our power to minimize delays," Lemons said.
In November, the IRS Oversight Board told Congress that a late-in-the-year passage of the AMT fix could delay nearly 38 million refunds, worth about $87 billion.
"Those of us who wait until April 15 to file an extension are not going to be affected," Stretch said. "But it will be very annoying for people who thought they were going to get a refund in late January or early February to pay their Christmas bills."
Without the fix, more than 20 million taxpayers would have seen their taxes increase by an average of $2,000.
"This year, the long arm of the AMT won't reach out and touch taxpayers who were never meant to pay it," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said in a statement.
House Democrats insisted that Congress offset the $50 billion cost of the AMT fix by closing offshore tax loopholes. But Republicans blocked legislation with a tax increase from coming up for a vote in the Senate, and President Bush threatened to veto any legislation that included a tax increase.
The House agreed Wednesday to the Senate version of the bill, which imposes the temporary fix but doesn't pay for it. Bush is expected to sign the bill.
About 4 million taxpayers owed the AMT in 2006. As a result of the temporary fix, about the same number of taxpayers will owe the AMT for 2007, says Clint Stretch, managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte Tax in Washington.
The AMT is a parallel tax system that eliminates many popular deductions and credits, resulting in a higher tax bill. It was originally intended to prevent wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes and deductions to avoid paying any taxes. But because it was never indexed to inflation, it's gradually expanded to ensnare even middle-class taxpayers who live in high-tax states or have many children.
Ordinarily, the IRS starts processing tax returns in mid-January. But the schedule will be delayed this time because the IRS will need about seven weeks to reprogram its computers to reflect changes in the tax law.
That means millions of taxpayers who file their returns in late January and early February will likely end up waiting four weeks longer than usual for their refunds, says Chrys Sullivan, assistant vice president for client services at H&R Block, (HRB) the nation's largest tax-preparation chain. Taxpayers who file electronically usually receive their refunds in about two weeks.
IRS spokesman Terry Lemons said Wednesday that it's too soon to estimate how many refunds will be delayed or how long the delays will last. The IRS "will do everything in our power to minimize delays," Lemons said.
In November, the IRS Oversight Board told Congress that a late-in-the-year passage of the AMT fix could delay nearly 38 million refunds, worth about $87 billion.
"Those of us who wait until April 15 to file an extension are not going to be affected," Stretch said. "But it will be very annoying for people who thought they were going to get a refund in late January or early February to pay their Christmas bills."
Without the fix, more than 20 million taxpayers would have seen their taxes increase by an average of $2,000.
"This year, the long arm of the AMT won't reach out and touch taxpayers who were never meant to pay it," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said in a statement.
House Democrats insisted that Congress offset the $50 billion cost of the AMT fix by closing offshore tax loopholes. But Republicans blocked legislation with a tax increase from coming up for a vote in the Senate, and President Bush threatened to veto any legislation that included a tax increase.
The House agreed Wednesday to the Senate version of the bill, which imposes the temporary fix but doesn't pay for it. Bush is expected to sign the bill.
Good News for Small Business Owners
IRS solves a health insurance problem for one-person S firms
by clarifying that premiums they pay are deductible for policies bought
in the owner's name. Previously, IRS had said the deduction applied only
to policies bought in the firm's name. That created problems for S firms
in states where corporations can't buy a group plan with one participant.
If you are a sole proprietor, here's a surefire tax saver:
Hire your spouse and offer FAMILY coverage for all employees...
that way, you would then receive coverage under your spouse's policy.
If your spouse is your only employee, there's no extra out-of-pocket cost.
The full cost of the medical plan is deducted on Schedule C or F
as a business expense, the Tax Court says (Frahm, TC Memo. 2007-351).
In this case, the spouse was a bona fide employee of her husband's farm.
She worked in the fields, cared for livestock and kept financial records.
But you must be careful to avoid slipups, as another case shows.
Make sure that the employee-spouse is the primary insured on the policy
and that premiums are paid from the business checking account. Otherwise,
the premiums won't lower your SECA tax bill (Eyler, TC Memo. 2007-350).
by clarifying that premiums they pay are deductible for policies bought
in the owner's name. Previously, IRS had said the deduction applied only
to policies bought in the firm's name. That created problems for S firms
in states where corporations can't buy a group plan with one participant.
If you are a sole proprietor, here's a surefire tax saver:
Hire your spouse and offer FAMILY coverage for all employees...
that way, you would then receive coverage under your spouse's policy.
If your spouse is your only employee, there's no extra out-of-pocket cost.
The full cost of the medical plan is deducted on Schedule C or F
as a business expense, the Tax Court says (Frahm, TC Memo. 2007-351).
In this case, the spouse was a bona fide employee of her husband's farm.
She worked in the fields, cared for livestock and kept financial records.
But you must be careful to avoid slipups, as another case shows.
Make sure that the employee-spouse is the primary insured on the policy
and that premiums are paid from the business checking account. Otherwise,
the premiums won't lower your SECA tax bill (Eyler, TC Memo. 2007-350).
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
New Changes to FMLA
The U.S. Senate has voted 90-3 to approve legislation that includes a provision that would allow employees to use leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act in certain circumstances when their spouse, child, or parent is called for active duty in the military.
If signed by Bush, the legislation (H.R.1585) would amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to allow leave:
"Because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty) in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency operation."
The legislation contains another provision that would entitle an eligible employee who is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of a covered servicemember to a total of 26 workweeks of leave during a 12-month period to care for the servicemember. The leave would only be available during a single 12-month period.
The legislation would also allow employers to require certification. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the legislation earlier this month.
If signed by Bush, the legislation (H.R.1585) would amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to allow leave:
"Because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty) in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency operation."
The legislation contains another provision that would entitle an eligible employee who is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of a covered servicemember to a total of 26 workweeks of leave during a 12-month period to care for the servicemember. The leave would only be available during a single 12-month period.
The legislation would also allow employers to require certification. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the legislation earlier this month.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tax Tip for the Day
The holidays are fast approaching, and you're wondering what to get your favorite teenager. Rather than shopping for the latest trendy fashion or iPod accessory, why not consider a gift that could secure his or her future? Consider funding a Roth IRA for your child or grandchild.
For this to work, the child must have had a job in 2007 because only people with earned income can contribute to an IRA. (Investment income doesn't count.) So, if your teen made money delivering papers, babysitting, flipping burgers, or working any after-school or weekend job, he or she qualifies.
And, there's nothing in the rules that says that the child's own money has to go into the individual retirement account. It's fine with the IRS if you give your son, daughter or grandchild the cash. The key is that no more be contributed to the Roth IRA than the worker earned on a job.
This year, individuals can put up to $4,000 into a Roth IRA. Even a small contribution now can add up to big bucks in the future thanks to the power of long-term compounding.
Let's assume you give your 15-year-old daughter $1,000 to fund a Roth IRA. If the money inside the account grows at an annual average rate of 8% -- well below the long-term average return for stocks -- that $1,000 will grow to about $47,000 over the 50 years it takes for today's teen to reach retirement age. If you added another $1,000 a year until she turned 20 -— and never added another dime -- that initial $5,000 investment would be worth nearly $250,000 by her 65th birthday. With a Roth IRA, the full amount will be tax-free when it's withdrawn in retirement.
In addition to setting your kids on the road to retirement security, the gift of a Roth IRA will help them realize more immediate goals. Since contributions are made with after-tax dollars, they can withdraw the contributions (but not earnings) any time, tax free and penalty free. And when it comes time to buy her first home, for example, she can withdraw up to $10,000 (including earnings) tax free and penalty free. It's hard to think of a better gift this holiday season.
Source: Kiplinger Tax
For this to work, the child must have had a job in 2007 because only people with earned income can contribute to an IRA. (Investment income doesn't count.) So, if your teen made money delivering papers, babysitting, flipping burgers, or working any after-school or weekend job, he or she qualifies.
And, there's nothing in the rules that says that the child's own money has to go into the individual retirement account. It's fine with the IRS if you give your son, daughter or grandchild the cash. The key is that no more be contributed to the Roth IRA than the worker earned on a job.
This year, individuals can put up to $4,000 into a Roth IRA. Even a small contribution now can add up to big bucks in the future thanks to the power of long-term compounding.
Let's assume you give your 15-year-old daughter $1,000 to fund a Roth IRA. If the money inside the account grows at an annual average rate of 8% -- well below the long-term average return for stocks -- that $1,000 will grow to about $47,000 over the 50 years it takes for today's teen to reach retirement age. If you added another $1,000 a year until she turned 20 -— and never added another dime -- that initial $5,000 investment would be worth nearly $250,000 by her 65th birthday. With a Roth IRA, the full amount will be tax-free when it's withdrawn in retirement.
In addition to setting your kids on the road to retirement security, the gift of a Roth IRA will help them realize more immediate goals. Since contributions are made with after-tax dollars, they can withdraw the contributions (but not earnings) any time, tax free and penalty free. And when it comes time to buy her first home, for example, she can withdraw up to $10,000 (including earnings) tax free and penalty free. It's hard to think of a better gift this holiday season.
Source: Kiplinger Tax
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Top 5 HR Issues in 2008
NEWS RELEASE: Finance: Capital Concepts Predicts Top Five HR Issues of 2008
Cincinnati Financial Planning Firm Predicts Top Five Human Resource Issues of 2008
Healthcare, Immigration to Top List of Top Five HR Issues of 2008
Cincinnati, OH — December 12, 2007 — While business owners begin to wrap up end of the year marketing executions and tax deductions, they should keep in mind the importance of looking for trends in every facet of business management. Capital Concepts managing director Angie Strunk predicts human resources to be an especially hot topic of debate in 2008.
Strunk regards the top five Human Resource issues of 2008 to be immigration, healthcare, new 401 K rules, flex time and telecommuting, and finally military spouses eligible for Unemployment Compensation.
“These five issues will by far be the most time consuming for human resource and business managers in the upcoming year,” Strunk said. “It’s important to be thoroughly prepared in order to address these issues should they arise, and HR professionals should count on these topics to be prevalent in 2008.”
To learn more about the top five human resource issues of 2008, or to schedule a one-on-one consultation with Angie, please contact (513) 367-1793.
About Capital Concepts
With offices in West Chester and Harrison, Ohio, Capital Concepts is a privately owned financial planning and advising firm that specializes in wealth management, insurance services, business accounting, internet business consulting, and tax return preparation. More information can be accessed by calling (513) 367-1793. New website coming soon.
Media Contact: Allison Brinkman, Eisen Management Group
Allison@eisenmanangementgroup.com
859.586.4302
Cincinnati Financial Planning Firm Predicts Top Five Human Resource Issues of 2008
Healthcare, Immigration to Top List of Top Five HR Issues of 2008
Cincinnati, OH — December 12, 2007 — While business owners begin to wrap up end of the year marketing executions and tax deductions, they should keep in mind the importance of looking for trends in every facet of business management. Capital Concepts managing director Angie Strunk predicts human resources to be an especially hot topic of debate in 2008.
Strunk regards the top five Human Resource issues of 2008 to be immigration, healthcare, new 401 K rules, flex time and telecommuting, and finally military spouses eligible for Unemployment Compensation.
“These five issues will by far be the most time consuming for human resource and business managers in the upcoming year,” Strunk said. “It’s important to be thoroughly prepared in order to address these issues should they arise, and HR professionals should count on these topics to be prevalent in 2008.”
To learn more about the top five human resource issues of 2008, or to schedule a one-on-one consultation with Angie, please contact (513) 367-1793.
About Capital Concepts
With offices in West Chester and Harrison, Ohio, Capital Concepts is a privately owned financial planning and advising firm that specializes in wealth management, insurance services, business accounting, internet business consulting, and tax return preparation. More information can be accessed by calling (513) 367-1793. New website coming soon.
Media Contact: Allison Brinkman, Eisen Management Group
Allison@eisenmanangementgroup.com
859.586.4302
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
HR Lawsuits Get Personal
We all know the old adage……… “You can sue anybody for anything”. Look at the crazy lawsuits likes the ones brought against McDonalds for having their coffee too hot or making some guy fat because he had one too many Big Mac’s, but if you deal with employees watch out. There has been an increase in the number of Executives and Managers that are being brought into employment related lawsuits.
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), permit individual suits. Additionally, state employment laws are looser than the federal and often allow individuals to be held personally liable.
Many plaintiff attorneys have found that naming individual defendants brings more pressure on the company to settle the claim, even when the case isn’t very strong. Plaintiff attorneys also use this tactic to implement the “divide and conquer” strategy. Individual defendants are worried about their own suits and might not be so loyal to the company, especially if they feel that turning on the company might save themselves.
In addition to direct violations of employment law statutes, managers can also be held liable for a “tortuous” acts, like:
• Defamation or public humiliation
• Lying or misrepresentation
• Outrageous behavior (like pounding the table or screaming)
• Ignoring or isolating an employee
• Assault and battery
Remember that there are many roles that can set you up for individual liability,
• Perpetrator—committing illegal or tortuous acts
• Accessory—ignoring illegal behavior after an employee complains
• Decision-maker—making decisions on important personnel matters
• Messenger—delivering bad news to employees
• Record keeper—completing or maintaining legally mandated records
• Administrator—serving as a benefit plan administrator
Here is a check list that Wendy Bliss, an attorney based in Colorado Springs, Colorado advocates in the publication HR Manager’s Legal Reporter.
1. Understand the employment laws. Be sure that you are familiar with the laws that may result in liability. Understand what they require of you, and set up checklists and reminder systems to be sure that you carry out your duties properly.
2. Know the activities that put you in jeopardy. Be aware of the particular roles and activities that pose liability danger, and take special care when exercising your duties in those areas.
3. Support your decisions with detailed, accurate documentation.
4. Use tact and diplomacy in day-to-day interactions with employees.
5. Listen carefully and nonjudgmentally when an employee expresses disappointment or anger.
6. Respect the confidentiality of personal or medical information.
7. Avoid inappropriate comments, jokes, or teasing, and do not permit others to engage in such behavior, (avoiding personal attacks avoids charges of defamation or harassment.)
8. Be especially wary with employees who are "career plaintiffs" or perpetual rule-breakers, or who are highly suspicious and distrustful and are overly attached to you, as well as those who exploit co-workers or who have an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
9. Handle difficult situations with extreme care.
10. Don't make irrevocable decisions in the heat of the moment.
11. Before delivering bad news, develop a script that gives specific truthful reasons for the action. Focus on behaviors rather than attitude. Consider having a witness on hand who could later testify to the fact that you handled the difficult situation humanely.
12. Follow the Platinum Rule: Treat others the way they want to be treated.
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), permit individual suits. Additionally, state employment laws are looser than the federal and often allow individuals to be held personally liable.
Many plaintiff attorneys have found that naming individual defendants brings more pressure on the company to settle the claim, even when the case isn’t very strong. Plaintiff attorneys also use this tactic to implement the “divide and conquer” strategy. Individual defendants are worried about their own suits and might not be so loyal to the company, especially if they feel that turning on the company might save themselves.
In addition to direct violations of employment law statutes, managers can also be held liable for a “tortuous” acts, like:
• Defamation or public humiliation
• Lying or misrepresentation
• Outrageous behavior (like pounding the table or screaming)
• Ignoring or isolating an employee
• Assault and battery
Remember that there are many roles that can set you up for individual liability,
• Perpetrator—committing illegal or tortuous acts
• Accessory—ignoring illegal behavior after an employee complains
• Decision-maker—making decisions on important personnel matters
• Messenger—delivering bad news to employees
• Record keeper—completing or maintaining legally mandated records
• Administrator—serving as a benefit plan administrator
Here is a check list that Wendy Bliss, an attorney based in Colorado Springs, Colorado advocates in the publication HR Manager’s Legal Reporter.
1. Understand the employment laws. Be sure that you are familiar with the laws that may result in liability. Understand what they require of you, and set up checklists and reminder systems to be sure that you carry out your duties properly.
2. Know the activities that put you in jeopardy. Be aware of the particular roles and activities that pose liability danger, and take special care when exercising your duties in those areas.
3. Support your decisions with detailed, accurate documentation.
4. Use tact and diplomacy in day-to-day interactions with employees.
5. Listen carefully and nonjudgmentally when an employee expresses disappointment or anger.
6. Respect the confidentiality of personal or medical information.
7. Avoid inappropriate comments, jokes, or teasing, and do not permit others to engage in such behavior, (avoiding personal attacks avoids charges of defamation or harassment.)
8. Be especially wary with employees who are "career plaintiffs" or perpetual rule-breakers, or who are highly suspicious and distrustful and are overly attached to you, as well as those who exploit co-workers or who have an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
9. Handle difficult situations with extreme care.
10. Don't make irrevocable decisions in the heat of the moment.
11. Before delivering bad news, develop a script that gives specific truthful reasons for the action. Focus on behaviors rather than attitude. Consider having a witness on hand who could later testify to the fact that you handled the difficult situation humanely.
12. Follow the Platinum Rule: Treat others the way they want to be treated.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The No-Match Letter Controversy: Do We Really Want to Lose These Employees?
There's been great controversy over the scheme to use Social Security's No-Match Letter process to help the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) force the firing of illegal immigrant workers. The scheme is on hold for now, but not the controversy.
Are sharper-teethed no-match letters still on the horizon? The Social Security Administration originally intended to start shipping them out on September 4, 2007. The AFL-CIO or the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to try to block the letters.
They sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its new rule forcing employers to fire workers who can't promptly straighten out foul-ups in the documentation of their right to work in the U.S. They claim there are so many inaccuracies in Social Security's data that the jobs of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens will be threatened.
For the time being, the suit has put Homeland Security's plans on hold. A federal judge agreed that there were too many expenses and glitches in the plan for it to go forward. Social Security in mid-November announced there wouldn't even be the old-style, toothless no-match letters in 2007. And now Homeland Security says it's going back to the drawing board to try to create an enforcement plan that will satisfy the federal judge. It hopes to issue a new rule by late March of 2008.
So maybe this federal judge can also get the EEOC on board as well, so that employers won't be sued for questioning someones documentation? Just a thought.
Social Security wasn't supposed to share information on no-match letters with DHS. So if DHS wanted to raid an employer, it needed its own sources of suspicious information. But that Chinese wall has apparently been dismantled. It now appears that DHS and Social Security will be forced to share information in order to implement any enforced no-match letters.
All in all, I think any new rule that puts the responsibility for immigration on employers' shoulders without government reform, is going to be a disaster - for workers, for employers, and for the U.S. in general.
What do you think? Did you get some no-match letters in 2005 that still haven't been cleared up?
Are sharper-teethed no-match letters still on the horizon? The Social Security Administration originally intended to start shipping them out on September 4, 2007. The AFL-CIO or the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to try to block the letters.
They sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its new rule forcing employers to fire workers who can't promptly straighten out foul-ups in the documentation of their right to work in the U.S. They claim there are so many inaccuracies in Social Security's data that the jobs of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens will be threatened.
For the time being, the suit has put Homeland Security's plans on hold. A federal judge agreed that there were too many expenses and glitches in the plan for it to go forward. Social Security in mid-November announced there wouldn't even be the old-style, toothless no-match letters in 2007. And now Homeland Security says it's going back to the drawing board to try to create an enforcement plan that will satisfy the federal judge. It hopes to issue a new rule by late March of 2008.
So maybe this federal judge can also get the EEOC on board as well, so that employers won't be sued for questioning someones documentation? Just a thought.
Social Security wasn't supposed to share information on no-match letters with DHS. So if DHS wanted to raid an employer, it needed its own sources of suspicious information. But that Chinese wall has apparently been dismantled. It now appears that DHS and Social Security will be forced to share information in order to implement any enforced no-match letters.
All in all, I think any new rule that puts the responsibility for immigration on employers' shoulders without government reform, is going to be a disaster - for workers, for employers, and for the U.S. in general.
What do you think? Did you get some no-match letters in 2005 that still haven't been cleared up?
Friday, December 7, 2007
Will Your Tax Refund Be Delayed?
Without congressional action, the IRS, unsure of the final status of the AMT tax, says it may have to postpone the processing of returns scheduled to begin in mid-January.
That could mean delays for millions of people waiting for income tax refunds worth billions of dollars. The tax agency says it will take about seven weeks after the tax is revised to reprogram and test forms reflecting the changes.
So don't overspend at Christmas........it might be a while before you get your tax refund!
That could mean delays for millions of people waiting for income tax refunds worth billions of dollars. The tax agency says it will take about seven weeks after the tax is revised to reprogram and test forms reflecting the changes.
So don't overspend at Christmas........it might be a while before you get your tax refund!
Alternative Minimum Tax
Tax Tip No. 1: Beware the AMT
Should you accelerate deductions to cut taxes? It depends -- you could end up with a bigger tax bill.
By Mary Beth Franklin
December 3, 2007
The AMT is a parallel tax system with its own set of rules. Originally designed to make sure wealthy people could not use legal deductions and loopholes to drive their tax bill to zero, the AMT is now increasingly affecting the middle class. The AMT does not allow deductions for state and local taxes, home-equity loan interest (unless the borrowed money was used for home improvements), or items such as investment expenses. Nor does it allow personal exemptions -- worth $3,400 this year -- for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependent children.
Essentially, you have to figure your taxes under two sets of rules -- the regular tax code and the AMT -- and pay whichever is higher. Regular tax brackets are indexed for inflation but the AMT isn't. Consequently, your chance of being trapped by the AMT increases each year, particularly if you claimed large deductions for state income taxes or property taxes or have a large family.
Although Congress is expected to approve a one-year patch that will prevent about 23 million new taxpayers from being hit by the AMT this year, it has not yet approved the final legislation. Even if Congress acts in time to prevent the AMT exemption to drop back to pre-2001 levels -- which we expect it will -- it’s a safe bet that if you paid the so-called “stealth tax” last year, you'll probably be caught again this year.
Should you accelerate deductions to cut taxes? It depends -- you could end up with a bigger tax bill.
By Mary Beth Franklin
December 3, 2007
The AMT is a parallel tax system with its own set of rules. Originally designed to make sure wealthy people could not use legal deductions and loopholes to drive their tax bill to zero, the AMT is now increasingly affecting the middle class. The AMT does not allow deductions for state and local taxes, home-equity loan interest (unless the borrowed money was used for home improvements), or items such as investment expenses. Nor does it allow personal exemptions -- worth $3,400 this year -- for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependent children.
Essentially, you have to figure your taxes under two sets of rules -- the regular tax code and the AMT -- and pay whichever is higher. Regular tax brackets are indexed for inflation but the AMT isn't. Consequently, your chance of being trapped by the AMT increases each year, particularly if you claimed large deductions for state income taxes or property taxes or have a large family.
Although Congress is expected to approve a one-year patch that will prevent about 23 million new taxpayers from being hit by the AMT this year, it has not yet approved the final legislation. Even if Congress acts in time to prevent the AMT exemption to drop back to pre-2001 levels -- which we expect it will -- it’s a safe bet that if you paid the so-called “stealth tax” last year, you'll probably be caught again this year.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
New Minimum Wage
Don't forget the minimum wage in Ohio will raise to $7.00 per hour effective January 1, 2008.
Monday, December 3, 2007
MySpace and Facebook: Routine Reference Checks or Dangerous Data Sources?
Should your reference checks on job applicants include looking at their relationship Web pages, such as those found on "Facebook" or "MySpace?"
Some experts say yes. It's your job to find out everything you can about candidates, and checking their Web pages should be routine.
Others counter that such checks may be an invasion of privacy, are likely to turn up information you really don't want (such as information about disabilities and appearance), and may not even actually be the candidate's posting.
What to do? Here's the opinion of George Lenard, writing in the CollegeRecruiter.com blog. Lenard, originator of George's Employment Blawg, is managing partner of the St. Louis-based law firm Harris, Dowell, Fisher & Harris LC.
There are several issues to be considered, Lenard says, including discrimination, invasion of privacy, and terms of service violations.
Discrimination
Discrimination is one possible charge you could face in response to an adverse employment decision based on website information.
This is especially true if you conduct searches only on certain types of applicants and, specifically, those in protected classes. So, for example, searching only for those with certain ethnic or racial backgrounds, or searching only for those of a particular sex or age, would be unwise.
Of course, even if you consistently search on all candidates, you still could be accused of racial bias if you made a race-based decision after learning a candidate's race from looking at his or her Web page, or if you appear to have made such a decision by, for example, only hiring from a single racial group after viewing these pages.
Sexual orientation may also be readily disclosed on a website, and discrimination on that basis is prohibited in many jurisdictions.
Privacy
Are relationship pages "private areas," like an applicant's home, where bosses may not go without permission? Some have said so.
Lenard, however, doesn't think that privacy suits will get very far because of the requirement for a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. After all, how reasonable is that expectation if thousands of people can access your page? However, he notes, there could be a case made if 1) the person believes that the site is private, 2) the site promotes itself as private, and 3) especially if the company used nefarious means (such as using a false identity) to gain access to the site.
Terms of Service Violations
Lenard sees slim possibilities for cases based on violations of the terms of service agreements that site visitors must agree to. Nevertheless, there is some possibility of problems in this area, particularly if the company enters without proper authorization.
FCRA
There could also be Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ramifications if the website information is obtained by a third party. FCRA would not prohibit the use of the information, but would require the employer to disclose that the information was the basis for the employment decision.
Some experts say yes. It's your job to find out everything you can about candidates, and checking their Web pages should be routine.
Others counter that such checks may be an invasion of privacy, are likely to turn up information you really don't want (such as information about disabilities and appearance), and may not even actually be the candidate's posting.
What to do? Here's the opinion of George Lenard, writing in the CollegeRecruiter.com blog. Lenard, originator of George's Employment Blawg, is managing partner of the St. Louis-based law firm Harris, Dowell, Fisher & Harris LC.
There are several issues to be considered, Lenard says, including discrimination, invasion of privacy, and terms of service violations.
Discrimination
Discrimination is one possible charge you could face in response to an adverse employment decision based on website information.
This is especially true if you conduct searches only on certain types of applicants and, specifically, those in protected classes. So, for example, searching only for those with certain ethnic or racial backgrounds, or searching only for those of a particular sex or age, would be unwise.
Of course, even if you consistently search on all candidates, you still could be accused of racial bias if you made a race-based decision after learning a candidate's race from looking at his or her Web page, or if you appear to have made such a decision by, for example, only hiring from a single racial group after viewing these pages.
Sexual orientation may also be readily disclosed on a website, and discrimination on that basis is prohibited in many jurisdictions.
Privacy
Are relationship pages "private areas," like an applicant's home, where bosses may not go without permission? Some have said so.
Lenard, however, doesn't think that privacy suits will get very far because of the requirement for a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. After all, how reasonable is that expectation if thousands of people can access your page? However, he notes, there could be a case made if 1) the person believes that the site is private, 2) the site promotes itself as private, and 3) especially if the company used nefarious means (such as using a false identity) to gain access to the site.
Terms of Service Violations
Lenard sees slim possibilities for cases based on violations of the terms of service agreements that site visitors must agree to. Nevertheless, there is some possibility of problems in this area, particularly if the company enters without proper authorization.
FCRA
There could also be Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ramifications if the website information is obtained by a third party. FCRA would not prohibit the use of the information, but would require the employer to disclose that the information was the basis for the employment decision.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
New I-9 Form and Employer Handbook.
The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") has recently published a new Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification Form) and a new "Handbook for Employers," which contains instructions for completing the new I-9. Copies of the new I-9 and the Handbook are available at www.uscis.gov/I-9.
The most significant change to the I-9 is that effective November 7, 2007, five documents previously acceptable as proof of employment authorization are no longer valid. Therefore, employers can no longer rely on those documents when completing the I-9 . Changes to the Handbook include guidance regarding use of electronic signatures, electronic storage, E-verify procedures, and unlawful discrimination.
As of November 7, 2007, the amended I-9 is the only valid version of the form, and only the documents listed on it are acceptable as proof of employment authorization. However, in a Notice posted in the Federal Register on November 26, 2007, the DHS announced it will not seek penalties against an employer for using a previous version of the I-9 on or before December 26, 2007. Even though the new form will not be required until December 26, 2007, we recommend that employers begin using the new form immediately for new hires. Please note that this rule is not retroactive, and employers need not complete a new I-9 for current employees.
The most significant change to the I-9 is that effective November 7, 2007, five documents previously acceptable as proof of employment authorization are no longer valid. Therefore, employers can no longer rely on those documents when completing the I-9 . Changes to the Handbook include guidance regarding use of electronic signatures, electronic storage, E-verify procedures, and unlawful discrimination.
As of November 7, 2007, the amended I-9 is the only valid version of the form, and only the documents listed on it are acceptable as proof of employment authorization. However, in a Notice posted in the Federal Register on November 26, 2007, the DHS announced it will not seek penalties against an employer for using a previous version of the I-9 on or before December 26, 2007. Even though the new form will not be required until December 26, 2007, we recommend that employers begin using the new form immediately for new hires. Please note that this rule is not retroactive, and employers need not complete a new I-9 for current employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)