angiestrunkspeaks

Employer Liability for Employee Bloggers and Defamation

2012-01-26T08:03:00.000-08:00

Chubbworks

2012-01-26T08:02:00.000-08:00

Chubbworks

» Retaining Employees * Better Pay or a Better Culture? | Recognize This! With Derek Irvine

2012-01-17T07:21:00.000-08:00

» Retaining Employees * Better Pay or a Better Culture? | Recognize This! With Derek Irvine

Alcohol and your Holiday Party--A Cause for Concern?

2011-12-22T07:38:00.000-08:00

Chubbworks

Job descriptions are not "exemption descriptions" - Lexology

2011-11-29T10:51:00.000-08:00

Job descriptions are not "exemption descriptions" - Lexology

NAIC passes broker compensation resolution | BenefitsPro

2011-11-23T09:24:00.000-08:00

NAIC passes broker compensation resolution | BenefitsPro

New Law Expands Credit for Hiring Military Veterans

2011-11-22T06:19:00.001-08:00

http://www.bizactions.com/n.cfm/page/e120/key/184997653G2407J3307987P0P1576T2/

5 workplace benefits trends for 2012 | BenefitsPro

2011-11-14T09:26:00.000-08:00

5 workplace benefits trends for 2012 | BenefitsPro

Top Employee Call in Excuses!

2011-11-10T04:50:00.000-08:00

Chubbworks

Enough's enough: Employer groups join together to fight NLRB poster rule

2011-11-07T11:03:00.000-08:00

From: Ohio Employment Law Letter | 11/01/2011
Editors: Bradd N. Siegel and Fred G. Pressley, Jr.

Several high-profile business advocacy organizations - including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Business - have each sued to stop a new rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requiring employers to post notices telling employees they have the right to unionize. The requirement takes effect January 31, 2012.

The NLRB has been agenda-driven for decades, tilting toward workers when Democrats were in the White House and toward employers in Republican administrations. The three recent lawsuits over the notice requirement, however, seem to be a collective shout of frustration over the current Board's actions.

Boeing's bad dream

This year, for example, the NLRB sued Boeing over its decision to start a new production line for its next-generation Dreamliner aircraft in right- to-work South Carolina rather than in unionized Washington. The Board claims the company acted to punish workers in Washington for exercising their protected right to strike. It wants Boeing to return the work to Washington even after the manufacturer has already hired employees in South Carolina and begun building a $750 million facility. Boeing denies the charges and maintains its decision was driven by economics. While the litigation proceeds, politicians and businesses are screaming bloody murder.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a measure that would forbid the NLRB from requiring a company to shut down or move a facility even if it broke the law. And the Politico website reports that in the Senate, Republicans are trying to build support for a rider to the NLRB budget that would stop the agency from doing anything to threaten the South Carolina plant.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in fact, chose to sue in federal court in South Carolina over the union-rights poster rule. It says the choice of court had no connection to the brouhaha over Boeing, but it does underscore building resentment toward the NLRB.

The National Federation of Independent Business, for example, said in a news release on the poster rule that the NLRB "has gone too far, passing a mandate that vastly exceeds its authority" at the expense of small businesses. Moreover, it and thousands of members are "standing up against the anti-business attitude that is reflected in actions of Washington's regulators. It is truly a wonder why the government continues to treat job creators as the bad guys."

What's on the poster

The poster requirement goes into effect January 31, 2012. The NLRB originally set the effective date for November 14, but the Board has decided to move that date back to allow for more education and outreach to employers. Under the requirement, most private-sector employers must post a notice telling employees they have the right to form and join unions, bargain collectively, and engage in other protected concerted activities - or refrain from engaging in them. The poster outlines both specific rights and prohibited conduct for both employees and employers. The poster will be provided free of charge by regional NLRB offices and is available for downloading from the NLRB website.

Although posting a boilerplate-type notice may seem innocuous to some, the lawsuits raise a host of arguments against the rule - and possibly against future NLRB directives as well.

Why the rights rule is wrong

Here are the main arguments business groups are making in their lawsuits:

1.The NLRB has no authority to require the employee-rights poster for two reasons. First, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) doesn't specifically authorize it but simply allows the Board to issue rules as needed to accomplish the purposes of the Act. Second, the employers say the NLRB can require notices to be posted only if an election petition has been filed or the employer has committed an unfair labor practice.

2.The rule contradicts parts of the NLRA, in effect amending the law without having to go through Congress. In particular, employers say that with the rule, the NLRB is creating a new type of unfair labor practice without authority to do so and is extending the statute of limitations for an unfair labor practice in conflict with what the Act says.

3.The rule violates employers' free-speech rights - namely, their right to refrain from speaking - because it forces them to make statements they wouldn't choose to make.

4.The NLRB downplayed the economic effect of the rule on employers and consequently didn't prepare a required analysis of how small businesses would be affected. Failing to do the analysis invalidates the rule, the employers say.

Perhaps the next fight

The next directive from the NLRB may be a final rule on its procedures for conducting secret-ballot elections over union representation. The proposed rules, issued over the summer, would mandate so-called "quickie" elections and give employers little time to effectively oppose unionization. They'd also require employers to give employee phone numbers and e-mail addresses to union organizers along with the currently required names and home addresses, making it easier for unions to contact employees. Expect a fight in which employers may reemploy many of the reasons they used to fight the poster rule.

Ohio Minimum Wage Increase

2011-11-03T07:09:00.001-07:00

Just a reminder:

The minimum wage in Ohio will increase to $7.70 per hour for non-tipped employees and to $3.85 per hour for tipped employees (plus tips) on January 1, 2012. However, for those employees whose employers gross $283,000 or less per year and for minors ages 14 and 15 years old, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, which is tied to the federal rate.

2012 FICA LIMITS

2011-10-20T08:53:00.000-07:00

FICA wage base increases to $110,100 for 2012

The Social Security Administration has announced that the taxable wage base for the Social Security portion of FICA will increase to $110,100 in 2012. That’s a 3.1% hike over the 2011 wage base of $106,800.

Of the estimated 161 million workers who will pay Social Security taxes in 2012, about 10 million will pay higher taxes as a result of the increase in the taxable maximum.

Except for pretax medical and tax-free fringe benefits, all wages are subject to the 1.45% Medicare portion of FICA, since no wage base applies to Medicare.

NLRB POSTPONES NEW POSTING RULE FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYERS

2011-10-06T05:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.benefitspro.com/2011/10/05/nlrb-delays-union-poster-rule-over-confusion

NLRB Posting Requirement for NON Union Employers

2011-10-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

You may not be aware that the NLRB will require most employers, even non-union employers, to post a Notice of NLRA Employee Rights in their workplace beginning November 14, 2011.

Here is a link to frequently asked questions regarding this new requirement:

https://www.nlrb.gov/faq/poster

Why is IRS offering amnesty for IC mistakes?

2011-10-03T13:45:00.000-07:00

Why is IRS offering amnesty for IC mistakes?

Life without the COBRA subsidy | BenefitsPro

2011-09-15T15:54:00.000-07:00

Life without the COBRA subsidy | BenefitsPro

CLASS Act alarms ignored | BenefitsPro

2011-09-15T15:38:00.000-07:00

CLASS Act alarms ignored | BenefitsPro

Survey finds almost half will work during summer vacation - Articles - Employee Benefit News

2011-08-04T05:16:00.000-07:00

Survey finds almost half will work during summer vacation - Articles - Employee Benefit News

Insurers must cover birth control with no copays | BenefitsPro

2011-08-02T08:55:00.000-07:00

Insurers must cover birth control with no copays | BenefitsPro

How to address the impact of health care reform on your business | Smart Business

2011-08-01T11:48:00.000-07:00

How to address the impact of health care reform on your business | Smart Business

Small Businesses Can Use PEOs To Reduce The Risk Of Employee Lawsuits in a Down Economy

2011-07-20T12:08:00.001-07:00

http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=620947328&gid=113967&type=member&item=60924437&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enationalnewstoday%2Ecom%2Fmoney-and-investing%2Fsmall-businesses-can-use-peos-to-reduce-the-risk-of-employee-lawsuits-in-a-down-economy%2Ephp&urlhash=do-N&goback=%2Egde_113967_member_60924437

Health insurance exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may pose a threat to COBRA - Articles - Employee Benefit News

2011-06-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

Health insurance exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may pose a threat to COBRA - Articles - Employee Benefit News

Insurance companies will have to justify premium rate increases

2011-05-23T13:09:00.000-07:00

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/health-insurere-premium-increases-2713606-1.html?ET=ebnbenefitnews:e1622:2183609a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBN_inBrief_052311

Report: Employers to see 2012 medical costs jump | BenefitsPro

2011-05-19T08:57:00.000-07:00

Report: Employers to see 2012 medical costs jump | BenefitsPro

AGENTS BENEFIT WHEN THEY CONSIDER PEOS AS OPTION FOR SOME CLIENTS

2011-05-05T11:03:00.000-07:00

http://ifawebnews.com/2011/05/01/agents-benefit-when-they-consider-peos-as-option-for-some-clients/

Make Employee “Stay Interviews” a Part of Your Engagement Strategy

2011-04-28T11:05:00.000-07:00

Make Employee “Stay Interviews” a Part of Your Engagement Strategy

Broker battle continues on the Hill | BenefitsPro

2011-03-28T13:13:00.000-07:00

Broker battle continues on the Hill | BenefitsPro

Do You Have a Work Spouse? - HRPeople

2011-03-10T18:42:00.000-08:00

Do You Have a Work Spouse? - HRPeople

Do You Check Facebook When Hiring? - Nolo's Employment Law Blog

2011-03-07T10:45:00.002-08:00

Do You Check Facebook When Hiring? - Nolo's Employment Law Blog

Use of credit reports in employment decisions is under heightened scrutiny

2011-03-04T08:24:00.001-08:00

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fe879caa-804f-4299-9fe5-344feda744a4

Making Work Pay Tax Credit

2011-03-03T07:02:00.001-08:00

Once again, a special tax credit offers taxpayers an opportunity to lower their tax bill or increase their refunds on their 2010 federal tax returns. Available to both Form 1040 and Form 1040A filers, this credit is claimed on Schedule M, Making Work Pay Credit. The Making Work Pay Credit helps millions of workers and self-employed individuals. Although income limits apply to this credit, it is refundable –– meaning that those eligible can get it even if they owe no tax. Though all eligible taxpayers must file Schedule M to claim the Making Work Pay Credit, most workers got the benefit of this credit through larger paychecks, reflecting reduced federal income tax withholding during 2010.

NOTE: 2010 is the last tax year in which workers may claim the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. The Tax Relief Act of 2010 terminates the Making Work Pay tax credit and replaces it with a 1-year payroll tax reduction that will reduce the employee share of the FICA payroll tax by almost one-third, by 2 percentage points – down to 4.2 percent.

: Kalamazoo County holds premium increases to zero - Articles - Employee Benefit News

2011-03-02T15:44:00.000-08:00

: Kalamazoo County holds premium increases to zero - Articles - Employee Benefit News

: Many consumers hold misconceptions about basic insurance policies and procedures - Articles - Employee Benefit News

2011-02-28T12:21:00.000-08:00

: Many consumers hold misconceptions about basic insurance policies and procedures - Articles - Employee Benefit News

Employee Snow Day Policy - Compensation Today

2011-02-17T12:31:00.000-08:00

Employee Snow Day Policy - Compensation Today

11 Top Productivity Tips From Managers

2011-02-14T05:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.hrtools.com/leadership_and_management/decision_support/11_top_productivity_tips_from_managers.aspx

10 Overused Phrases Interviewers Hate - HRPeople

2011-02-02T18:29:00.000-08:00

10 Overused Phrases Interviewers Hate - HRPeople

Companies Must Accommodate Employees' Religious Beliefs - HRPeople

2011-02-02T18:23:00.000-08:00

Companies Must Accommodate Employees' Religious Beliefs - HRPeople

Fired for Cause—It's a Process

2011-02-02T16:36:00.001-08:00

Fired for Cause—It's a Process

Example: Vanessa has been with the company for two years and, despite supervisory training and coaching on her performance and the company's expectations, her performance remains sub-par. Her repeated mistakes and lack of productivity are affecting the rest of the department, both in effectiveness and morale. Unless this situation changes, Vanessa's employment needs to be terminated.
Being fired for cause is handled very differently than being fired in connection with a reduction in force, says Moore. A layoff is a one-time event; a termination is a process. It requires documentation before the termination decision is made, documentation throughout the performance improvement plan period, and documentation at termination, she adds.
Before any words are spoken:
• Review the company's policies and procedures regarding termination
• Examine Vanessa's personnel file. Closely review her performance appraisals and any other documentation regarding her performance.
Recent positive glowing performance appraisals, high ratings, raises, and bonuses should give pause, and you should ensure that adequate documentation of sub-par performance exists.
Your words must communicate that this situation is a result of unacceptable performance, not personality. For example, say, "You need to complete all daily call reports by 4 pm" not something more vague like "You never manage to get the daily reports in on time." You must also relay your willingness for her to have an opportunity to improve, Moore says.
Vanessa needs a timeline for completing her goals, and your communication needs to be clear that an inability or unwillingness to complete and sustain expected levels of performance will lead to her termination of employment. She needs to acknowledge her understanding of what's expected of her, as well as the seriousness of the situation.
Your communication in this situation can be a balancing act. Your other employees, who know from the office grapevine that Vanessa is "in hot water," need to see that you are professional, respectful, and supportive during what is a difficult and awkward employment situation for everyone. Your communication—both oral and in writing—needs to support the performance plan: fair, balanced, accurate, and about the work.
What Not to Say
These conversations can be very awkward, which can result in a soft-pedaling of the basic message, such as
• "You need to do better ..."
• "This could be okay ..."
• "Sometimes, it seems like ..."
• "I get the feeling that you... ."
NO, says Moore, be straightforward. Be non-negotiable. Maintain composure and stick to the message.

Q: Am I legally bound to give employees an annual review? - HRPeople

2011-01-19T20:24:00.000-08:00

Q: Am I legally bound to give employees an annual review? - HRPeople

6 Illegal Interview Questions You Shouldn't Ask - HRPeople

2011-01-19T20:22:00.000-08:00

6 Illegal Interview Questions You Shouldn't Ask - HRPeople

Do employers need to worry about bed bugs?

2010-10-19T18:44:00.000-07:00

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=3387

10 Career Lessons From Dad!

2010-06-17T07:23:00.000-07:00

http://hrpeople.monster.com/news/articles/3660-10-career-lessons-from-dad?page=3

Grand jury indicts executives over workplace accident - Dayton Business Journal

2010-06-16T14:45:00.000-07:00

Grand jury indicts executives over workplace accident - Dayton Business Journal

10 Ways you are annoying Your co-workers

2010-06-15T16:04:00.000-07:00

http://hrpeople.monster.com/news/articles/3653-10-ways-youre-annoying-your-coworkers?page=6&utm_content=hrp_c1_20100615_manners&utm_source=nlet

HR matters Don't treat human resources as DIY - Winnipeg Free Press

2010-06-14T18:46:00.000-07:00

HR matters Don't treat human resources as DIY - Winnipeg Free Press

Complaining about work on facebook is a bad idea

2010-05-13T09:06:00.000-07:00

http://hrpeople.monster.com/news/articles/3587-complaining-about-work-on-facebook-is-a-bad-idea

Health Care for Employees Children up to age 27

2010-05-12T19:36:00.000-07:00

By Stephen Miller and posted on SHRM's website on 4/28/10

As a result of changes made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that became law in March 2010, health coverage provided for an employee's children under 27 years of age is now generally tax-free to the employee, effective March 30, 2010, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

The IRS announced on April 27, 2010, that these changes allow employers with cafeteria plans––plans that allow employees to choose from a menu of tax-free benefit options and cash or taxable benefits––to permit employees to begin making pretax contributions to pay for this expanded benefit.

IRS Notice 2010-38 explains these changes and provides further guidance to employers, employees, health insurers and other interested taxpayers.

“These changes give employers a unique opportunity to offer a worthwhile benefit to their employees,” IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said. “We want to make it as easy as possible for employers to quickly implement this change and extend health coverage on a tax-favored basis to older children of their employees.”

In the guidance, the IRS explained that employers may provide tax-free medical coverage to children up to age 27. "This tax-free guidance should not be confused with the new health care requirement to provide coverage to dependent children up to age 26. The [reform act] changes to the Public Health Service Act do not parallel the changes to the Internal Revenue Code," explained Frank Palmieri, founding attorney of the law firm Palmieri & Eisenberg, in an alert issued by his firm.

Specifically, the guidance clarifies that:

• The changes to the Public Health Service Act serve to extend coverage to children up to age 26 effective for plan years beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010.

• The Internal Revenue Code creates an income tax exclusion for children under age 27 as of the end of a taxable year, effective as of March 30, 2010.

This expanded health care tax benefit applies to various workplace and retiree health plans. It applies to self-employed individuals who qualify for the self-employed health insurance deduction on their federal income tax return.

Employees who have children who will not have reached age 27 by the end of the year are eligible for the new tax benefit from March 30, 2010, forward, if the children are already covered under the employer’s plan or are added to the employer’s plan at any time.

Moreover, the IRS clarified that:

• For this purpose, a child includes a son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child or eligible foster child. This new age 27 standard replaces the lower age limits that applied under prior tax law, as well as the requirement that a child generally qualify as a dependent for tax purposes.

• Employers with cafeteria plans may permit employees to immediately make pretax salary reduction contributions to provide coverage for children under age 27, even if the cafeteria plan has not yet been amended to cover these individuals. Plan sponsors then have until the end of 2010 to amend their cafeteria plan language to incorporate this change.

In addition, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act require plans that provide dependent coverage of children to continue to make the coverage available for an adult child until the child turns age 26. The extended coverage must be provided not later than plan years beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010. The favorable tax treatment described in the notice applies to that extended coverage.

Information on other health care provisions can be found on this web site, www.IRS.gov.

FLSA Breast Feeding Break Requirement

2010-04-27T16:14:00.001-07:00

One of the immediately effective portions of the Health Care Reform Act was a requirement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that an employer provide breaks and a location for breast feeding of an infant up to one year of age. Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) amends Section 7 of the FLSA to require employers to provide: (1) "reasonable" breaks for employees to express breast milk in (2) a location free from intrusion in which to take those breaks (restrooms are specifically excluded as acceptable locations). Employers with less than 50 employees who can demonstrate that they would experience "undue hardship" in the course of providing nursing mother breaks are exempt. Breaks taken during work hours do not have to be compensated, but employers are not free to dictate when or how long the breaks must be. CAVEAT: this federal requirement does not preempt any state or local requirement that may provide a more significant requirement.

Healthcare reform and revision impacts pre-tax eligible items

2010-04-27T15:25:00.001-07:00

Healthcare reform and revision impacts pre-tax eligible items

The recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 changes the rules for the purchase of over-the-counter products through a Flexible Spending Account (FSA), Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) or Health Savings Account (HSA) effective January 1, 2011.

Employees with an FSA, HRA or HSA from that date forward will not be allowed to use their account funds to purchase over-the-counter drugs and medicines such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen or cough syrup unless they have a Note of Medical Necessity (NMN) or a prescription from their doctor.

Employees may continue to use their FSA, HRA and HSA funds to purchase over-the-counter items that are not considered a drug or a medicine such as bandages, wound care, contact lens solution, condoms and more.

Beginning January 1, a copy of the prescription for over-the-counter medication and drugs will be required once a year for claims payment.

Participants should consider the new over-the-counter rules when estimating the amount to put in their FSA or HSA for plans beginning on or crossing the January 1 date. Participants should be encouraged to make all their over-the-counter purchases so before the deadline of December 31, 2010.

Ohio Workers Comp Changes

2010-04-26T14:09:00.001-07:00

The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) has introduced a new large deductible program with deductibles ranging from $25,000 to $200,000 per claim. The options are an expansion of the deductible program introduced by BWC in 2009, which offered five deductible levels from $500 to $10,000 per claim.

“The large deductible program is a true insurance program that is offering employers another option to save on their workers’ compensation costs by accepting a particular level of risk,” said BWC Administrator Marsha Ryan. “This and our arsenal of performance-based new programs are helping employers mold their workers’ compensation plan to fit their overall business needs, while keeping safety at the forefront of those plans.”

The new program offers qualified employers a choice among deductible levels of $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, or $200,000 per claim. A “stop loss” option allows employers to limit their total annual liability to three times the deductible amount. The large deductible program will be available to employers beginning July 1, 2010, with registration open from March 1 to April 30.

BWC also adopted a new hospital outpatient fee schedule and adjusted its payment system to allow the board to set rates before services are delivered.

The changes come amid continued upheaval in the state’s workers’ compensation system. On Jan. 12, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard McMonagle certified a class action lawsuit by employers that allege that BWC’s group rating system unfairly discounts rates for group members at nonmembers’ expense. Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate that up to 100,000 businesses may join the class, which includes employers that paid non-group-rated premiums for policy years from July 1, 2001, to July 1, 2008.

Within two weeks of that decision, the Senate passed legislation seeking to sustain the very discounts that inspired the lawsuit. Senate Bill 213 would freeze group-rated discounts for two years from July 1. Ohio Sen. Karen Gillmor, who cosponsored the bill, noted that “despite the agency’s urgency to reduce the employers’ premium discount, BWC is not hurting for resources.” Gillmor acknowledged the need for reform, but argued that “raising premiums on more than 70,000 companies during one of the worst economic periods in our state’s history is not the responsible way to go about it.”

Contributed by BLR, Inc. Read plain-English analysis on Workers' Compensation in Ohio.

Tired of Whiners at work???

2010-04-06T13:02:00.001-07:00

Send them this article!!

http://hrpeople.monster.com/news/articles/3383-10-things-you-should-stop-complaining-about-at-work?page=1&utm_content=hrp_c1_20100406_complain&utm_source=nlet

How much do employees cost?

2010-04-01T07:55:00.001-07:00

Great article from cnn.money

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/26/smallbusiness/employee_costs/

Socialism Here we Come! Update on Healthcare Reform!

2010-03-23T15:07:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h09FqD3e_qA

Don't skip the BackGround Checks!

2010-03-08T13:30:00.001-08:00

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2010/02/27/business/down_to_business_dont_skip_the_a69.txt

COBRA EXTENSION

2010-03-03T12:43:00.001-08:00

Obama signs stopgap COBRA subsidy extension

WASHINGTON—President Obama Tuesday night signed into law legislation that provides a stopgap, 31-day extension of federal subsidies of COBRA health care premiums.

The measure was approved earlier Tuesday by the Senate on a 78-19 vote, while the House cleared it last week.

Under H.R. 4691, the 65%, 15-month premium subsidy for laid-off workers is extended to those involuntarily terminated from March 1 through March 31. Without the extension, employees laid off after Feb. 28 would have been ineligible for the subsidy.

The measure also will allow employees to receive the subsidy if they first lost group coverage due to a reduction in hours and then were terminated after enactment of the legislation, if certain conditions are met.

Meanwhile, the Senate Wednesday will continue consideration of legislation, H.R. 4213, that would extend the premium subsidy to employees laid off through Dec. 31, 2010.

Making Employees Pay for Damaged Company Property

2010-03-02T12:17:00.000-08:00

Many employers have a policy requiring employees to reimburse for damage to company property, usually through payroll deductions or a deduction from the employee's final paycheck. These policies generally reflect employers' legitimate concerns about lost revenue resulting from employees' negligent or willful misconduct. From an employer's viewpoint, such policies are a matter of security and fairness, particularly when reimbursement is required only for intentional misconduct or damage resulting from unauthorized use of company property.

In general, an employer may not deduct for cash shortage, breakage, or equipment loss unless caused by the employee's gross negligence, or dishonest or willful act. However, an employer may deduct from a final paycheck the cost of a uniform, tools, or equipment not returned by a terminated employee within a reasonable time, if the employee gave the employer prior, written authorization to do so and if the employer can show that the employee committed theft or was negligently responsible for the loss.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a deduction for loss or damage may be made if two conditions are met:
• The employee signed a written agreement prior to the shortage (at the start of employment or when the policy related to deductions is adopted) by which he or she agrees to such a deduction; and
• The deduction does not bring the employee's hourly rate below the minimum wage.

While employers may be limited or prohibited from deducting from employees' paychecks for loss or damage to company property, they can take other affirmative steps to limit their losses from employee negligence or willful misconduct.
• Discipline. If an employee causes damage or loss because of poor performance, the employee should be subject to discipline in the same manner as employees with other performance issues.
• Termination. In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract, employees can generally be terminated at the will of the employer. Employers should include a provision in their discipline policies reserving the right to impose discipline, up to and including termination, in any situation they deem appropriate. Willful or intentional misuse of company property resulting in significant loss could be grounds for immediate termination.
• Civil Suit. Employers can file a civil suit or make a claim in small claims court to recoup the money owed for the loss or damage.
Thus, before implementing such a policy or executing an agreement with an employee to authorize payroll deductions for damage or loss to company property, employers should be aware that many states and the federal government have laws restricting or even prohibiting an employer's ability to make such payroll deductions.

Source: HR Advisor

Employee Issues? Get Professional Help

2010-03-01T13:24:00.001-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204825_pf.html

Waiting On the Government for Health Care Reform?

2010-02-16T06:54:00.001-08:00

http://www.napeo.org/e-news/AtlantaBusinessChronicle_StateofUncertainty021110.pdf

Filing a Workers' Comp Claim for H1N1 Flu???

2009-10-21T08:11:00.000-07:00

Apparently people will try to find any reason to file a workers' compensation claim. Some experts are predicting that some employees, especially in the health care industry who come in contact with those suffering from flu like symptoms as part of their jobs, will seek workers' compensation benefits. The claims would be based on the fact that they are at greater risk of contracting the disease than someone in the general population.

The good news is, the related claims would likely be minimal in cost. However, with the predicted increase in deaths related to H1N1 could be a cause for concern.

How Updated is your Employee Handbook

2009-10-14T17:37:00.000-07:00

So, you have an employee who is driving your company vehicle and they have an accident while texting......that's grounds for termination, right? Well that depends. How updated is your employee handbook? Does it address this issue? It is now illegal to text and drive in 18 states and Washington, DC (www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Assets/Files/2099871453120.DistractedDrivingLaws.doc)
but do you have your employement policies updated to uniformly protect employees from being distracted while driving or operating equipment?

Recognize that mobile commmunication is a fact of life and make sure that your policies are practical and realistic.

Source: NAPEO, PEO Insider, October 2009

Employers Health Care Costs Expected To Rise

2009-06-19T12:48:00.001-07:00

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/06/15/daily46.html?ed=2009-06-19&ana=e_du_pap

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: The Letter

2009-06-16T12:48:00.001-07:00

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: The Letter

Shared via AddThis

Government is taking over private Businesses....this should scare us all!

2009-06-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

The new chairman of GM's board (government appointed) vows to "learn about cars".......WOW!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQ._YJhEj_Jo

New I-9 Form

2009-04-27T10:07:00.001-07:00

Just a reminder the Department of Homeland Security has released a new I-9 form for use after April 3, 2009. If you haven't began using this new form, you can download it at http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf.

Obama Pushes for Tax Reform Next Year

2009-04-24T06:44:00.000-07:00

Obama is looking to close tax loopholes for businesses. He wants to have higher SECA taxes on owners of S firms and partnerships.

He wants to eliminate the skiriting of the payroll tax by by sharehoders of S Corps who take dvideneds instead of salary by making them pay self-employment tax on their share of the firm's income that comes from the shareholders servcies.

He also wants to increase the 33% and 35% marginal income tax rates to rise to 36% and 39.6%. He also wants to increase the capital gains and dividents for filers in the 28% bracket. Additionally itemized deuctions on upper income taxpayers would be further limited. Other deductions on the chopping block would be the deduction for domestic production, accelerated depreciation, tax breaks on foreign income, amortization of intangibles, and special incentives for oil drilling and output.

Source: Kiplinger

Cell Phones in Cars—Employees Crash, Company Burns

2009-03-25T13:56:00.000-07:00

(The following scenario, courtesy of the newsletter, the Safety Daily Advisor, is based on a real case.)

Valerie Walker used her car as her office several days a week as she drove around the state visiting her company's clients. Rather than waste the long hours on the highway, she used that time to make phone calls back to her office or to clients.

One day she pulled onto the interstate and set her cruise control for 77. Using her company-supplied cell phone she contacted a client with whom she hoped to make an appointment.

Unfortunately, because she was busy talking on the phone, she didn't notice that the traffic ahead had suddenly slowed to a halt. By the time she saw the red taillights of the vehicle in front of her, she was almost on top of it. She jammed on the brakes, but it was too late. Her car slammed into a vehicle, pushing it to the side of the road where it overturned.

The vehicle Walker rear-ended landed on the driver's side and slid down the road. As the car slid along, the arm of the vehicle's driver was caught between the door and the pavement.

After a lengthy hospitalization and a series of medical complications, doctors had to amputate the accident victim's arm. The victim, a widowed mother of four, sued Walker and Walker's company, citing a state distracted driving law and claiming that the use of a cell phone while driving was unreasonably hazardous and therefore against the law. The victim asked for millions of dollars in actual and punitive damages.

The Outcome

This case was settled before it went to trial, with the employer agreeing to pay the accident victim $5.2 million.

Several other cases involving employer liability for accidents caused by employees using cell phones have also been settled for millions of dollars. These include:

• The family of an accident victim sued for wrongful death, and the court found the employer liable for $20 million. The employer eventually settled the case for $16 million.

• An Arkansas jury found a lumber company liable after one of its employees struck another car, gravely injuring the passenger. The case ended up being settled for $16 million.

• In a highly publicized incident, an attorney discussing business on her cell phone struck and killed a 15-year-old girl. Her firm settled for an undisclosed amount, and the attorney was charged with a felony and ordered to pay $2 million herself.

When Do You Have Liability?

All of these cases have been based on the principle that if an employer supplies a cell phone to an employee, even if the employee is making a personal call—or if the employee uses his or her own cell phone for business—the employer can be held liable for damages if the employee injures someone in a road accident while using the phone.

Because these accidents are occurring with increasing frequency, and because distracted driving studies show that people using cell phones—even headsets—are several times more likely to have accidents than other drivers, it's time for employers to wake up to the liability involved.

The fact of the matter is that you simply can't afford to ignore this problem if any of your employees drive on the job and might use a cell phone while driving. You need to have a cell phone policy, and you need to make sure your employees know it and understand why they need to follow the rules.

Source: BLR

Dear AIG, I QUIT!!

2009-03-25T12:59:00.000-07:00

This is an awesome letter written by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

Do you hear me clapping and giving this man a standing ovation?!?!?!?!?

Unions: Why the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) Could Change Your Workplace Forever

2009-03-18T18:49:00.000-07:00

"We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act." President Obama recently made this statement to AFL-CIO leaders in a videotaped address, according to the March 4 edition of the The Wall Street Journal.

Scary stuff for employers.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would mean the most aggressive, sweeping changes to the U.S. labor rules since the National Labor Relations Act was passed more than 70 years ago.

Many observers predicted that the current economic crisis would force Congress to delay action on this bill-but that's increasingly starting to look like wishful thinking. Union officials have released statements from Nobel-winning economists and other business experts supporting EFCA, and they're ready to spend millions of dollars and volunteer hours this spring pressuring Congress to pass the legislation.

And, of course, President Obama is clearly behind the bill.

Why should you worry? For employers large and small, EFCA is very bad news:
• It paves the way for union organizers to expand quickly into new workplaces by collecting signed cards without your knowledge (instead of holding a formal secret-ballot election).
• If 50 percent or more of your workers sign those cards, boom: You're unionized. No more campaigns, no more voting-signatures alone will be enough to get the job done.
• EFCA also gives federal arbitrators the brand-new authority to impose labor contracts in your workplace if you fail to reach agreement with union locals within 120 days of the union's formation.

Contact your Senators and Representaitves today. Let them know that you are against EFCA.

Source: BLR

There Are Risks in Investigating

2009-03-10T07:43:00.000-07:00

Today's Tip from BLR...........

When an employee makes a complaint, conventional wisdom says that you have to investigate even when requested not to, says attorney Jonathan Segal. While that's correct for most cases, recognize that there may also be some risks in investigating.

The risks of not investigating are obvious, says Segal. You're on notice of a potential problem, which may be worse than reported, and you won't be investigating it.

However, there are also risks in investigating. First, there's a loss of trust when an employee thinks they have revealed something in confidence and then you say you can't keep it confidential.

Second, in some circumstances, investigating may increase the litigation risk. Say an employee makes a "relatively" minor complaint. Even if everything alleged is true, it is not unlawful discrimination or harassment. But you dutifully go to the manager and talk about the accusation. Now, down the road, if there is an adverse action against the complaining employee, there's a basis for a retaliation claim that wasn't there until you started investigating.

So, Segal says, there's a strong presumption toward investigating, but there might be situations in which you would choose not to.
Factors to consider in making this decision include but are not limited to:
• The severity and pervasiveness of the alleged offense
• Whether others were affected by the alleged action
• Whether there have been other complaints by the reporting employee or about the accused employee
• Positions of parties involved (For example, if a junior employee is complaining about behavior of his or her boss, or some other senior person, you'll have to investigate.)
• When and where the alleged offense took place

If you do choose not to investigate, document the basis for your decision. Write a memo to the employee (not just to file). Mention that you have obligations to investigate allegations of harassment (or discrimination) and that you need to confirm what you discussed—that you offered to investigate and that at the employee's request you are not investigating. If there are any future problems, the employee should come back to HR.

Now, if things go south in the future, your memo will show that you didn't just brush the allegation aside and that your decision not to investigate does not mean that you condone discrimination or harassment.

From Sarbanes-Oxley to petty theft, from bias and harassment complaints to threats of violence, internal investigations are business as usual for HR professionals. But it's important to remember that they're a double-edged sword: You have a legal duty to promptly investigate, but if you make mistakes along the way, you could wind up in even more hot water than when you started.

Source: BLR

2009 Stimulus Act

2009-03-02T14:06:00.000-08:00

2009 Stimulus Act

The new recovery act, according to the White House, will give a direct tax break to 95 percent of workers and their families, through the Making Work Pay Credit.

The law contains many other tax breaks that should provide a financial boost to everyone from the unemployed and low income, to families with children and children in college, to first-time homebuyers and taxpayers buying new cars.

The $787 billion legislation, which Congress approved Feb. 13, is designed to get both individuals and businesses to open their wallets and to lift the economy out of its slump. Most of the cuts are good for only a year or two.

As more details about the tax changes become available, TurboTax will post them here.

Tax breaks for individuals, families:

Workers

Making Work Pay Credit: Workers and the self-employed would get a payroll tax credit for 2009 and 2010 of up to $400 a year for single taxpayers, and up to $800 for couples filing jointly.

The IRS will get the money to taxpayers by adjusting the withholding tables, thereby boosting paychecks. The increase could be as much as $40 per month per worker, depending on when the withholding tables are changed. Self-employed workers will claim the credit on their tax returns. In the meantime, they can reduce their estimated tax payments for 2009.

For single tax filers, the credit will begin phasing out at an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $75,000. For couples filing jointly, the phaseout zone will start at $150,000 of AGI. (Adjusted Gross Income is your total income from wages and other income minus certain adjustments, such as deductible IRA contributions and alimony paid.)

Unemployed

Reduced taxes on unemployment income: Normally, people receiving unemployment benefits must report them as income and can be taxed on them. The new bill makes the first $2,400 of unemployment income nontaxable.

First-time homebuyers

First-time Homebuyer's Credit: The tax package increases the $7,500 first-time homebuyer credit to $8,000 for primary residences purchased between Jan. 1, 2009 and Nov. 30, 2009, and eliminates the requirement that the credit be repaid, as long as the house isn’t sold within three years.

College students

Expanded Hope Credit: The Hope Credit for college costs is increased to $2,500 for 2009 and 2010, covering 100 percent of the first $2,000 of tuition and related expenses per year and 25 percent of the next $2,000.

The credit is available for all four years of college, up from only two years, and covers the cost of books. It is 40 percent refundable, and begins to phase out at $80,000 of Adjusted Gross Income for singles and $160,000 of Adjusted Gross Income for married couples.

The bill also allows tax-free distributions from Section 529 College Savings Plans to cover computer purchases.

New car buyers

New car sales tax deduction: Buyers of new cars, light trucks, SUVs, motorcycles or motor homes during 2009, can deduct the state sales or excise tax they pay, even if they don’t itemize their deductions.

This break starts phasing out for single taxpayers with Adjusted Gross Income over $125,000 and couples with AGI over $250,000.

Tax Breaks for Families

Expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): More couples who file jointly and have children will qualify for the Earned Income Credit.

The tax package starts the phaseout range at $21,420, an increase of $1,880. Also in 2009, the credit increases for families with three or more children to 45 percent of the first $12,570 of earned income, up from 40 percent.

Enhanced Child Tax Credit: Plus, the Child Tax Credit will cover more low-income earners: For 2008, the credit is refundable to the extent of 15 percent of an individual’s earned income in excess of $8,500; for 2009 and 2010, that floor drops to $3,000.

Retirees, veterans and the disabled

One-time payment of $250: Because the payroll tax credit only goes to employees and the self-employed, the bill adds something for others as well: a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of Social Security benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, Supplemental Security Income payments, and pension and disability benefits from the Veterans Administration.

Government retirees who don’t get Social Security will also get a one-time refundable tax credit of $250 in 2009.

Homeowners

Extended energy-saving credits: The 10 percent tax credit for energy-saving home improvements climbs to 30 percent and is extended through 2010. Improvements that qualify for the credit include energy-efficient skylights, windows and outer doors, along with energy-saving water heaters, central air conditioners and biomass stoves.

The bill also eliminates individual credit caps for the different types of property, and instead imposes a $1,500 cap on all qualifying property.

Middle-income taxpayers

One-year "patch" on the Alternative Minimum Tax: To keep millions of middle-income taxpayers from being forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for 2009, the measure increases the minimum tax exemptions to $70,950 for couples filing jointly and $46,700 for single filers. Otherwise, the exemptions would top out at just $45,000 for couples and $33,750 for singles.

Businesses will get a big share of the tax breaks

Small businesses would most likely be affected by the following changes:

Bonus depreciation

Special 50 percent, first-year bonus depreciation is revived for assets bought and placed in service during 2009.

Loss carrybacks

Businesses that averaged $15 million or less in gross receipts over the past three years will be allowed to carry back losses for five years instead of two. The easing applies only to 2008 losses.

Source: 360 financialliteracy.org

COBRA Questions and Answers

2009-02-26T18:59:00.000-08:00

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204708,00.html

Quirky Overtime Questions You Probably Should Be Asking

2009-02-25T09:09:00.000-08:00

Some important information that might help you when you are trying to determine if you need to pay overtime.

From BLR:

Do I have to pay overtime on paid lunch breaks?

Our workweek is 35 hours, plus we pay lunch breaks of 1 hour each day, totaling 40 hours paid each week. If our employees work an hour of overtime, that is, work 36 hours (and get paid for 41 hours), do we have to pay overtime premium for that hour?

No. You can pay them straight time. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that overtime be paid for each "hour worked" in excess of 40. Since the lunch breaks are not hours worked, they don't have to be counted toward overtime. Therefore, the employee's total hours worked in that week would be only 36. Once the hours worked exceed 40, you would have to start paying overtime.

What about paid break times?

Do we have to count 15-minute break times as time worked for overtime purposes?

Yes, if it is just 15 minutes. The only situation under which a break is not "time worked" under the FLSA is when it meets all of the following criteria:
—The break is more than 20 minutes if it is a rest break or more than 30 minutes if it is a meal break.
—The employee is completely relieved from duty; for example, not required to answer phones or to watch over a machine.
—The employee is free to leave his or her duty

OK, how about smoke breaks?

We are a wellness company. Do we have to pay our smokers for the time they spend on smoke breaks?

Smoke breaks are no different from regular breaks—if they are less than 20 minutes, they are "hours worked." Note: Federal law does not require employers to provide breaks and rest periods, although some state laws do have such requirements.

How do you calculate overtime for salaried nonexempt?

How do you calculate overtime to nonexempt employees who are paid on a salary basis but work more than 40 hours in a week?

In general, overtime for nonexempt employees who are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly is figured by converting the salary to an hourly rate, but the method varies depending on how the workweek is structured. For example:
• Salaried with a fixed 40-hour week. The overtime rate is one and one-half times the rate per hour (weekly salary divided by 40) for all hours over 40 worked per week.
• Salaried with a fixed week of fewer than 40 hours. The overtime rate is one and one-half times the rate per hour (weekly salary divided by the number of hours that the salary is intended to compensate) for all hours over 40 worked per week. For example, if an employee is paid a weekly salary of $350 for a 35-hour week, the rate per hour is $10. The employee must be paid $10 for hours 36 to 40 worked in a week and $15 for any hours in excess of 40 worked in a week.

The employer and employee could have an agreement that the salary paid represents compensation for all hours up to 40 per week. In that case, no additional compensation would be owed for hours 36 to 40, and the overtime rate would be the same as for an employee with a fixed 40-hour week.

• Salaried with an irregular workweek. Employees who are paid a salary and whose hours vary from week to week receive an overtime premium calculated as follows: For each hour worked over 40, add one-half the rate per hour for that week. The rate per hour is the weekly salary divided by the actual number of hours worked in the workweek. For example, a $400-per-week employee earns $8 per hour in a 50-hour week. Half this amount, $4, is the overtime premium per hour. With 10 hours of overtime, the employee receives $40 in overtime pay.
• Monthly and semimonthly salaries. For these employees, overtime is computed by converting their salary to a weekly rate.

Is Your March Madness Office Pool Legal?

2009-02-23T13:49:00.000-08:00

Author(s): Maynard Ontario

The smell of freshly-pressed bracket sheets fills the office air. The water cooler talk of upsets, sure things, and Cinderella stories remind us that March Madness, college basketball's championship tournament, is here again.

For many Americans, the March Madness office pool is a sacred tradition. According to online gambling site LazerWager, 2008 March Madness office pools were worth more than $2.5 billion with 27% of American employees participating. But while you study the match-ups and make your picks, you may be asking yourself: "Is my office pool legal?"

In short: No. Betting on college sports is legal only in Nevada, where it now brings in more than $600 million a year. Though the FBI may not be conducting 24-hour surveillance on your cubicle, participating in or organizing inter-office gambling, like all unlicensed sports betting, is illegal. In most states, involvement in such pools can result in a misdemeanor charge and up to one year in prison.

In reality, the likelihood of facing prosecution for participating in an office betting pool as an employee or employer is virtually nonexistent. Employers, however, face significantly higher risk than employees. And if you're the company owner, the liability risk may be more than you're willing to accept. Many bosses and owners may laugh at the fact that their "little office pool" is actually illegal. And although the risk of prosecution is low, if you own the company, you need to be aware that March Madness can pose serious legal liabilities.

Though you may have to be the party pooper, it is up to the company owner to set certain rules regarding gambling at work. A clear, concise section in your company's employee handbook should explain the legalities involved in inter-office betting. If you decide to prohibit or restrict gambling at the workplace, explain both the workplace and legal consequences so employees are aware that you take the issue seriously.

If you own the property where your workplace is located, you have even more liability risk. The owner of the premises where gambling is conducted is subject to the same criminal liability as the organizers and participants whether or not he or she is involved in a single bet.

The other side of the coin is that office pools usually carry low bet amounts and can create camaraderie among employees. The possibilities of long-shots and underdog victories make March Madness one of the most exciting events in sports; even non-sports fans are easily swept up in the enthusiasm. Following a team, trash-talking with friends, and putting a little money down add to the fun and can help foster a sense of community among employees.

If you do decide to organize or allow an office pool, you can reduce your liability risk by keeping the stakes low and separating gambling and work. Avoid online brackets and keep your pool on paper. Prevent disruption at work by prohibiting game-watching over the Internet and encouraging pool participation only during breaks and lunch. Rather than using the typical buy-in bracket model, allow everyone to participate for free and simply provide prizes for the winners. Organize after-work parties to watch the games together. Make it fun—you may be able to build camaraderie without the added risks.

Good luck with your brackets!

Source: LegalZoom.com

Stimulus Bill Dramatically Modifies HIPAA Rules - Business Associates and Covered Entities Must Address New Requirements

2009-02-20T11:29:00.001-08:00

By John Barlament, JD. Michael Best & Friedrich

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the "Act"; also informally known as the "Stimulus Bill") was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. The Act contains surprising modifications to HIPAA's Privacy and Security Rules. These changes will likely require every business associate agreement to be modified. The Act also, for the first time, requires business associates to comply directly with many of HIPAA's rules and subjects business associates to HIPAA's civil and criminal penalties. The Act increases the penalties for various HIPAA violations and dramatically expands other remedial actions (such as increasing federal government audits; granting attorneys fees in some HIPAA lawsuits; and allowing a method for individuals to recover penalties under HIPAA). The changes are significant to all covered entities, but are most challenging for business associates, who now face a host of new requirements.

For model plan documents contact John Barlament.

Security Rules Apply Directly to Business Associates.
For the first time, business associates must comply directly with many of HIPAA's Security Rules. This will require every business associate to take several actions, including appointing a security official, developing written policies and procedures, and training its workforce on how to protect electronic protected health information ("EPHI"). These provisions go well beyond the previous requirements for business associates, where business associates only had to comply with the written business associate agreement.
Business associates also will need to follow HIPAA's Security Rules relating to physical safeguards (such as locking computers that contain EPHI), technical safeguards (such as encrypting emails) and the requirement to adopt written policies and procedures. Failing to do so will - for the first time - subject a business associate to civil monetary penalties and criminal penalties for each notification (and, as discussed below, the civil monetary penalties are now increased).

New Security Breach Rules.
Under current law, the breach of the privacy or security of protected health information ("PHI") often does not require significant action by a covered entity or business associate. This changes under the Act. Now, a covered entity or business associate that has a specified security breach will be required to notify each individual affected by the security breach. This can involve written notification by mail or, if specified by preference by the individual, email. If the covered entity or business associate lacks current contact information, it may be required to post notice of the breach on its website or in newspapers or other broadcast media (e.g., television). For certain large breaches (involving more than 500 residents in a particular area) a "prominent media outlet" must be notified of the breach. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") also must be contacted, and HHS is to establish a website listing these breaches. There is an exception for certain unintentional breaches.

WILL THE ACT REQUIRE CHANGES TO MY HIPAA FORMS?
These new changes almost certainly will require changes to a health plan's current HIPAA forms. For business associates without any current HIPAA forms, the business associate must create the forms for the first time. The Act is likely to require several changes to existing HIPAA forms. For example, the breach provisions specify the type of information that must be collected and provided to individuals, HHS and media outlets. This information includes a brief description of what happened, including the date of the breach, the date of the discovery of the breach along with the steps individuals should take to protect themselves from potential harm resulting from the breach. A covered entity also must disclose what it is doing to investigate the breach, to mitigate losses and to protect against any further breaches. In order to gather all this data, a covered entity must modify its policies and procedures and related forms to ensure it has a process in place to gather the data, then communicate it in a manner required by the new law.

HHS Guidance and Appropriate Technologies and Methodologies
Currently there is considerable confusion about what technologies and methodologies covered entities and business associates should use to protect EPHI. For example, must all email be encrypted? If so, what encryption software programs are sufficient? For the first time, HHS is required to issue, and annually update, guidance specifying the technologies and methodologies that will render EPHI secure. Covered entities and business associates are likely to welcome any additional guidance in this area.

Certain Privacy Rules Apply Directly to Business Associates
The Act states that business associates must comply directly with certain HIPAA Privacy Rules, primarily the requirement to have and follow a business associate agreement. The scope of this change is unclear. It could mean that every entity must determine whether it is a business associate with respect to a covered entity. If so, the business associate may be required to enter into a business associate agreement with the covered entity. Previously, it was a covered entity's responsibility to identify all its business associates (a business associate did not need to identify whether it actually was a business associate).

Changes to Restriction Request Rules.
Currently, HIPAA allows an individual to request that certain PHI not be used by a covered entity or business associate. This is known as a restriction request. Current law generally allows the covered entity to decline all such requests. Now, under the Act, a covered entity must comply with the restriction request in certain circumstances (if the disclosure is to a health plan for purposes of carrying out payment or health care operations (not treatment) and the PHI pertains solely to a health care item or service for which the health care provider has been paid in full).

New Rules Regarding Electronic Health Records.
The Act creates a new term, "electronic health record", which is an electronic record of health-related information on an individual that is "created, gathered, managed, and consulted by authorized health care clinicians and staff." It is not clear whether this term applies only to such health records when they are held by an authorized health care clinician or the related staff. When such a health record is transferred to a health plan, employer or business associate, it is not clear whether the Act's requirements will continue to apply.

The Act imposes significantly more disclosure accounting requirements relating to electronic health records. Currently, a covered entity or business associate need not track its disclosures of PHI if the PHI is used to carry out treatment, payment or healthcare operations. This is very helpful, because most disclosures of PHI fall into one of these exceptions, so the disclosure need not be tracked. Now, under the Act, if the disclosure of an electronic health record is for treatment, payment or healthcare operations, the covered entity (and a business associate) must maintain an accounting of such a disclosure. There is a delayed effective date for this provision, such that it will apply sometime between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2014.

Prohibition on Sale of Electronic Health Records or PHI. The Act states that a covered entity or business associate cannot directly or indirectly receive remuneration in exchange for any PHI unless it first obtains a valid authorization from the individual whose PHI is being disclosed.

Access to Electronic Health Records
The Act states that if a covered entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with respect to PHI, an individual shall have the right to obtain from the covered entity a copy of such information in "electronic format". It is not clear what the term "electronic format" means, and whether an individual can request a particular electronic format (or if the individual can only receive the information in an electronic format selected by the covered entity).

Changes to Definition of Healthcare Operations
Currently, many health plans and business associates may send out communications to plan participants to encourage the participants to use a product or service. This will still likely be possible, but the rules have become more restrictive and these types of communications must be examined more thoroughly to ensure that they remain proper.

Other Vendors of Personal Health Records Now Covered.
The new rules go beyond regulating business associates and covered entities. The new rules also cover any "vendor" of "personal health records." The new rules impose security standards on such vendors and require the Federal Trade Commission (not HHS) to help enforce these new rules. The new rules appear to apply to certain vendors (such as Microsoft and Google) that have begun collecting health records even though the vendor is not a covered entity or business associate.

New Business Associate Contracts Required for Certain Entities
Certain organizations that transmit PHI on behalf of a covered entity or business associate must have a business associate contract (or similar contract) in place with the covered entity (or business associate).

Significant Overhaul of Civil Monetary Penalties
The civil monetary penalties are significantly increased. Currently, the amount of the penalty is generally $100 for each violation. This $100 amount (and its related cap of $25,000 for multiple violations) increases to $1,000 per violation for a violation due to "reasonable cause and not to willful neglect" (with a maximum penalty of $100,000); $10,000 for each violation that was due to willful neglect and is corrected (subject to a $250,000 maximum penalty); and $50,000 for each violation if the violation is not corrected properly (subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 during a calendar year). These changes are immediately effective (i.e., they are in effect today) and represent a dramatic increase in the penalties under HIPAA.

In addition, state attorney generals can now bring a HIPAA enforcement action against a covered entity or business associate that violates these rules. Further, the state attorney general can obtain attorney's fees under such an action (although the attorney's fees are discretionary and not mandatory).

HHS - the main enforcer of HIPAA - now is required to conduct "periodic audits" to ensure that both business associates and covered entities are compliant with these new rules. Audits were possible under the old regulations. However, audits tended to be fairly rare, perhaps due to a lack of funding at HHS. Now, some monetary penalties or settlements collected by HHS are transferred to HHS's Office of Civil Rights to be used for purposes of enforcing HIPAA. This appears to solve the funding issue that HHS had apparently experienced. Thus, clients can expect to see increased HIPAA audits and enforcement.

Individuals Can Receive Compensation for Breaches.
The Act requires HHS to establish a regulation, within the next three years, providing that individuals affected by a HIPAA violation will be able to receive a percentage of any civil monetary penalty or monetary settlement collected with respect to such offense. Previously, it was difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to receive such amounts. This change alone may cause an increased interest in enforcement activity, as individuals (and their lawyers) will now have a financial incentive to bring HIPAA complaints and accusations of HIPAA violations.

Effective Date. The general effective date for the Act is February 17, 2010. However, many of the provisions have varying effective dates and others have an effective date that is unclear. Business associates and covered entities should examine each provision carefully.

Model Documents to Assist in Compliance
In March, 2009 we will make available our updated model documents for health plans and business associates. Please contact one of the attorneys below for more information about these documents or about any of the items discussed in this alert.

For more information, please contact John L. Barlament at 414.227.2793, or JLBarlament@michaelbest.com;

Payroll Cards

2009-02-19T10:14:00.000-08:00

Payroll costs represent a prime target for many employers
eager to slash their expenses in a down economy. Beyond
the savings realized by layoffs and hiring freezes, they're
seeking ways to reduce their payroll processing costs as
well.

That's why more organizations have turned to payroll
cards as a solution. These prepaid cards can eliminate
50 percent to 75 percent of your payroll overhead, while
reducing bank service fees and account reconciliation
chores and minimizing your risks of payroll fraud. Plus,
they're popular with many employees - especially
workers who may not have personal bank accounts.

Planning and implementing a new payroll card system,
however, may sound easier than it is. Longtime
employees could resist losing their paper checks, while
some workers may not really understand how the cards
work. If you pick the wrong types of payroll cards, your
workers may find them difficult to use locally, or they
may be surprised with unexpected fees. And, given the
current state of the economy, your employees may be
suspicious about any changes you make in how they're paid!

I personally love them. I use a debit card for everything, so using a payroll card it great. I also give my teenager one with a little bit added each week.....keeps me from having to give her cash all of the time!

So, do you use payroll cards? What are your thoughts?

Obama Signs Stimulus Package with New HR Requirements

2009-02-18T09:03:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, February 17, President Barack Obama signed an economic stimulus package that includes a COBRA subsidy for laid-off workers and other HR-related provisions.

Both chambers of Congress approved the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act late last week. The final version of the legislation includes a COBRA subsidy for laid-off workers. The subsidy will be 65 percent of the COBRA premium for a period of 9 months--employers (or health plans if they administer COBRA benefits) will receive a credit against payroll taxes to offset the subsidy. The premium subsidy will cover workers who were affected by involuntary terminations occurring between September 1, 2008, and January 1, 2010.

There is an income threshold as an additional condition on an individual's entitlement to the premium subsidy during any taxable year. Taxpayers with gross income that exceeds $145,000 will have to repay the entire amount of the premium subsidy. For taxpayers with gross income between $125,000 and $145,000, the amount of the premium subsidy that must be repaid is reduced proportionately.

The legislation requires that information on the COBRA subsidy be included in COBRA notices. Under the legislation, the Department of Labor will create a model notice within 30 days of enactment.

The legislation also includes other HR-related provisions. For example, it increases weekly unemployment benefits by $25. The legislation also provides an extension of the temporary emergency unemployment compensation program (which provides up to 33 weeks of extended benefits) through December 2009. Under the program, no benefits will be payable for any week beginning after May 31, 2010.

The legislation also provides unemployment compensation to workers who leave an employer for “compelling family reasons,” such as domestic violence, illness or disability of an immediate family member, and the need to accompany a spouse to a place from where it is impractical to commute and due to a change in location of the spouse's employment. The Department of Labor will define immediate family member.

Link

* Conference Report for HR 1 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)

Source: BLR

What was Obama's Rush???

2009-02-16T08:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm

Is anyone else frustrated with our government?

2009-02-16T06:27:00.000-08:00

Do you believe in the following 9 Principals?
The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

If so check out this web site for what YOU can do.....

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21018/

Challenges Ahead: Getting Ready for Older Workers

2009-02-11T13:06:00.000-08:00

You can hardly open a business magazine or read the newspaper these days without reading about the impending wave of retirements as the first of the 77 million baby boomers approach 65.

And that’s a sure sign you should sit up and take notice, especially if you run a small business: You’re going to need to figure out whether you’re ready for the average age of your workers to keep rising; ready for a drop in the supply of workers coming along behind the baby boomers; and ready to keep the older people you already have and attract these younger ones in an increasingly competitive labor market.

The National Association of Professional Employer Organizations, our trade association, recently asked its members’ clients how they’re getting ready for these impending changes.

They found that a fifth of these almost 400 small and medium-sized businesses say at least some of their older workers are staying on past 65. More than a third of these said at least some of their employees are still working because they can't afford to retire.

To be sure, twice that many businesses said their employees were staying past 65 because they liked working or enjoyed the extra income.

Yet even with these older workers remaining on the job, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging predicts there could be a shortage of 35 million workers less than a quarter of a century from now.

The committee is considering "The Older Worker Opportunity Act," S.1826, which provides a tax credit to employers who offer flexible or part-time work for older workers while protecting them from loss of pension or health benefits.

That lets these workers "gradually transition into retirement instead of entering full retirement abruptly," says the committee.

It could be a big boon to small businesses – assuming their owners have the time to keep up with this kind of complex federal legislation. Many don’t, and that is where a professional employer organization comes in: The full-time human resources professionals at a PEO (Like TriServe www.triservehr.com) can help clients take advantage of benefits that laws such as the Older Worker Act may offer and to mitigate the cumbersome laws that don’t help.

“These older employees represent both an opportunity, thanks to their valuable experience, and a huge challenge, because small businesses have to get ready now for the graying work force," said Milan P. Yager, executive vice president of the trade association.

To read the full report: http://www.napeo.org/newscenter/research.cfm
###

Visit our PEO at www.triservehr.com

More Good Stuff from President Obama

2009-02-10T12:13:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama recently led the Democrats to an overwhelming victory in the 2008 elections. That's great news for America's labor unions, which spent more than $400 million and organized massive get-out-the-vote campaigns across the country to support the winning side. In a recent speech to the AFL-CIO, then said he'll be a "President who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best - organize our workers."

Now, union leaders plan to collect on their investment in 2009 by pushing through Congress the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), with the most aggressive changes in federal labor laws since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act more than 70years ago.

This proposed legislation would make it much easier for union organizers to expand into new workplaces by collecting signed cards without your knowledge, instead of holding a formal secret-ballot election. If 50 percent or more of your workers sign those cards, boom: You're unionized. No more campaigns, no more voting - signatures alone will be enough to get the job done. Also, the EFCA would give federal arbitrators the brand-new authority to impose labor contracts in your workplace if you fail to reach agreement with union locals within 120 days of the union's formation.

Get ready!!!

Economic Stimulus Package Contains EMPLOYER COBRA Subsidy!

2009-02-09T10:24:00.000-08:00

Are you aware that the both versions of the stimulus package contain an EMPLOYER subsidy to pay COBRA premiums for employees? Here are the details.

By Mark Stember, Esq.

As you are aware, the House and the Senate both agree that an economic stimulus bill must be passed this month. However, as with all things legislative, there are competing versions and visions of that bill. Both the House and the Senate versions of the economic stimulus legislation amend COBRA in significant ways with very short proposed effective dates. Currently, various members of the House have indicated that a bill will be passed by February 14th, while members of the Senate are more skeptical that such an ambitious deadline can be achieved. In any event, it is clear that COBRA will likely be revised as part of the economic stimulus legislation, but the ultimate timing and scope of these revisions are still in a fluid state.

Employers to Fund COBRA for Terminated Employees

The following is a short synopsis of where employers and COBRA administrators stand currently with respect to this important piece of legislation. COBRA Subsidy Both the House and Senate bills include a COBRA premium subsidy for involuntary losses of employment between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. Under the subsidy, the qualified beneficiary would pay 35% of the applicable COBRA premium and 65% of the premium would be subsidized by the employer. The employer may then claim the amount of that subsidy as a credit against its payroll taxes. The subsidy would expire after 12 months (or 9 months under the Senate bill), leaving the remaining months as unsubsidized. If a second qualifying event occurred during that timeframe, it appears that the qualified beneficiary would be able to continue utilizing the subsidy (e.g., a divorce or death). The subsidy would be effective March 1, 2009 under the House bill, and April 1, 2009 under the Senate bill. Both bills also require a special 60-day election period for those who are eligible for the subsidy but failed to previously elect COBRA - e.g., an individual who terminated employment in October 2008 and who did not elect COBRA would receive a second chance to enroll currently. Further, the Senate bill would allow current COBRA participants to switch to any other medical option under the employer's plan. COBRA Expansion The House version also expands COBRA for those individuals who are at least 55 years old or who have at least 10 years of service. Individuals in this category who lose health coverage due to loss of employment or reduction of hours would be allowed to remain on COBRA until they are eligible for Medicare or another employer's group health plan.

The Senate bill has no similar provision. Preparation for Change If an economic stimulus bill is passed, it is likely to contain some version of the House and Senate provisions. When the final bill will solidify and what it will look like when that occurs is currently unknown. However, if all of the provisions currently contained in the bills remain intact, employers and their COBRA administrators will need to implement the revisions in a very short timeframe. These revisions would likely include the following: 1. Employers/COBRA administrators will need to prepare a special enrollment notice and send that notice to all employees who terminated employment since September 1, 2008. These employees could then elect COBRA currently with the premium subsidy. 2. Employers/COBRA administrators will need to prepare a special notice to existing COBRA participants informing them of the new premium subsidy and their new premiums going forward, and possibly allowing them the opportunity to change to another medical option offered by the employer. 3. Administrative procedures will need to be developed to implement all of the changes (e.g., new premium structure, new notices, and calculating the amount of the subsidy actually utilized each month so that the proper amount can be credited against the employer's payroll taxes). 4. Additional notices will need to be developed to inform COBRA participants when they reach the maximum subsidy limit. 5. The existing COBRA initial notice and election notice will need to be modified to include the new subsidy rules on a going forward basis. Both bills require the DOL and Treasury to adopt model notices within 30 days of enactment. However, the DOL and Treasury are routinely late on issuing model notices and due to the short effective date employers and COBRA administrators will need to proceed initially without any guidance from the agencies. As the legislative process progresses we will keep you updated on the latest developments on this important issue. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Mark L. Stember
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
607 - 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-2018
202.508.5802 (P)
202.585.0018 (F)
mstember@kilpatrickstockton.com

If you wish to complain or support the Employer Subsidy for COBRA contact your Senator at www.senate.gov and www.house.gov

FMLA Rule Amended

2009-02-09T08:16:00.000-08:00

From BLR:

The Department of Labor (DOL) says the revisions were designed to clarify the requirements and to improve communication between employers and employees. To some extent, these goals may be met, but the changes and challenges are many.

Here are summaries of some of the significant revisions included in the final rules:

The FMLA's Quirkiest Rule—Perfect Attendance Awards—Is Gone: Probably the most bizarre rule of the old FMLA was the one that allowed employees to miss 12 weeks of work and still get a perfect attendance award. The final rule changes how perfect attendance awards are treated to allow employers to deny awards to an employee who does not have perfect attendance because he or she took FMLA leave (but only if the employer treats employees taking non-FMLA leave in an identical way).

Intermittent Leave Now Requires "Reasonable Effort": The new rule clarifies that employees who take intermittent FMLA leave have a statutory obligation to make a "reasonable effort" to schedule such leave so as not to unduly disrupt the employer's operations. (Under the old rule, they just had to "attempt.") That's good news. Here are some other changes regarding intermittent leave:

The rules clarify that temporary transfers are allowed for employees taking planned intermittent leave only. (The department declined to expand temporary transfers to unplanned, unscheduled, or unforeseeable intermittent leave.)

The final rule also clarifies that accounting for leave need not be in the smallest increments that the employer's timekeeping system can handle, but rather in the smallest increments the employer uses to account for other types of leave, provided it is not greater than one hour.

And here's one more tricky change—the new rules prohibit employers from charging employees for the period of time that they are working. So, for example, if an employee stops working 30 minutes before the end of shift, and you use hourly increments, the employee cannot be charged for one hour of leave.

Serious Health Condition Definition Clarified: While the rule retains the six individual definitions of "serious health condition," it adds guidance on some regulatory matters.

First, the rule clarifies that if an employee is taking leave based on more than three consecutive calendar days of incapacity plus two visits to a healthcare provider, the two visits must occur within 30 days of the period of incapacity. The first visit must occur within 7 days of onset of incapacity.

Second, it defines "periodic visits to a healthcare provider" for chronic serious health conditions as at least two visits to a healthcare provider per year.

Gaps in 12-Month Service Defined: The final rule doesn't change the requirements for 12 months of employment and 1,250 hours of service in the 12-month period preceding the leave. The final rule also continues the standard that the 12 months of employment need not be consecutive. However, it adds that employment prior to a continuous break in service of 7 years or more need not be counted.

Light Duty Isn't Leave: Under the final rule, time spent in "light duty" work does not count against an employee's FMLA leave entitlement, and the employee's right to job restoration is retained during the light-duty period, but only until the end of the 12-month period that the employer uses to calculate the FMLA leave.

Source: BLR

Stimulus Package----What is it stimulating?

2009-02-05T13:07:00.000-08:00

So do we really need ANOTHER economic stimulus package????

Here is what is included.......do we really need this stuff?

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”

Read more here.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI=

Congress Approves Equal Pay Bill

2009-01-28T12:30:00.000-08:00

Both chambers of Congress have approved legislation that will extend the deadline for filing a pay-bias complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The House voted 250 to 177 in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S 181) today. The Senate approved the legislation last week. President Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the legislation, so he is expected to sign it quickly.

The legislation addresses a Supreme Court decision that said the deadline for workers to file a pay-bias complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is 180 days from the date the decision on their pay is made and communicated to them. Some lawmakers found this deadline too restrictive because many workers don't discover they were discriminated against in pay until long after the action was taken.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to clarify that the180-day deadline restarts each time an employee receives a paycheck that reflects past discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.

Specifically, the legislation states that “an unlawful employment practice occurs … when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.”

The legislation will also amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to include the provision quoted above.

Once signed, the legislation will take “effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and apply to all claims of discrimination in compensation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that date.”

Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber's plant in Gadsden , Alabama , from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. At first, her pay was in line with the salaries of men, but over time, a gap developed between her salary and the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and was paid $3,727 per month. By comparison, the pay of the lowest paid male area manager was $4,286 per month.

Ledbetter sued in 1998, alleging disparate treatment. The company argued that the suit should be dismissed because Ledbetter failed to file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the previous pay decisions that Ledbetter alleges were discriminatory.

However, Ledbetter argued that the clock on the 180-day deadline restarted after each paycheck that reflected past discrimination. She claimed that each time the company issued her a paycheck, the company demonstrated an intent to discriminate and violated Title VII. The majority of the Supreme Court rejected her arguments, saying Ledbetter should have filed a complaint after each pay decision.

Source: BLR

A Peek into Enemy Camp—Plaintiff's Lawyer Spills Secrets

2009-01-28T08:16:00.000-08:00

This was a great article from BLR that all employers should know!

From BLR:

Warner is a partner with Moody & Warner, P.C., in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Her tips for fending off lawsuits came at the recent Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) conference in Chicago.

'Don't worry, this is not a punitive damages case'

HR managers tend to underestimate their liability, Warner says. They think about how long the employee has been out of work and believe that is the limit of their exposure. That's wrong, says Warner. In most of these cases, a very large portion of what employers pay is emotional distress and punitive damages.

Your defense attorney almost always says, "Don't worry, this is not a punitive damages case." But, says Warner, I'm going to turn it into one. Think about what the jury has to believe to find for your employee. The jury has to think you discriminated, that you didn't act appropriately, or that you retaliated.
Once they believe that, she says, it's not too much of a leap to get them to say, "We need to punish the company for this."

High-Ranking Manager Is the Bad Actor

Warner says she likes it when a high-ranking manager was the harasser or took the retaliatory step. The higher the rank, the better for her client, she says.
Even Better (for plaintiff)—This Is Not the First Problem with this Manager
One school principal called his African-American administrator "my little brown sugar" and "my African Queen." She complained. The superintendent called in the principal, who was a friend, and the principal said he was just joking around. Good enough, said the superintendent, but no more joking around.

Little did the superintendent know that in the principal's file was a last-chance warning for similar behavior. But Warner found it. Even Better (for plaintiff)—The Manager Got Promoted and Got a Bonus.

A grocery chain store director said to a 20-year employee, "Those pants are really painted on. Do you have to lie on the bed to get those pants on?" The employee complained, and the director said he was trying to get her to abide by the dress code. No action was taken and about 10 days later the employee was fired. Meanwhile, the director was promoted and got his usual bonus. Does that, asks Warner, sound like punitive damages?

Here's what I'm going to tell the jury, she says: "You rewarded him for this inappropriate behavior and she's out of work after 20 years. There's nothing bad in her file; he has a thick file full of complaints and problems. The jury does not like that."

No Reason Given for Termination

Managers often say to employees who are being terminated, "You're 'at will'—we don't have to give you a reason." That's a mistake, says Warner. Every employee believes that he or she is at least meeting expectations, and most think that they are stars. So the firing is going to come as a shock. "It can't be because of my performance, I'm a star. So it must be something illegal; otherwise they would tell me." It's best, advises Warner, to tell the employee what the reason is.

Even Better (for plaintiff)—Your Reason Is Readily Disproved with Objective Evidence
One of Warner's clients was fired for poor attendance. She pulled the computer logs and showed that her client only missed one day during the year in question. Ball game.

Another worker who complained of harassment was fired for taking an unauthorized discount of $1.98. To investigate that theft, the company had viewed surveillance tapes, interviewed all the checkers, and done a very thorough investigation. But when it came to investigating the employee's harassment complaint, they did very little. The appearance was that they cared more about their $1.98 than their employee's well-being.

Before you terminate or lay off your employee's, especially in this market, make sure you are doing so properly!

Source: BLR

E-mail or Meetings: Which Is the Bigger Time Waster?

2009-01-23T08:13:00.000-08:00

According to no less an authority than the New York Times, the economy loses $650 billion a year because of unnecessary workplace interruptions. Some writers suggest that most of that total comes from e-mail and instant messages (IM).

Do you find that you spend way too much time on email during the day? According to an "email" from BLR today, the average workers checks e-mail 50 times a day and IMs 77 times a day!

E-mail-less Fridays?

One writer recently suggested that employers ban e-mails on Friday (or doing certain hours, etc.).

The idea has some surface appeal, but it is as unlikely to take hold as a similar "rule" banning meetings. The reason is simple: Meetings and e-mail are not drags on efficiency. In the wrong hands, they waste time, but they are pervasive for the simple reason that they work. They help us get our jobs done.

Take meetings. A well-run meeting has an agenda. Its organizer makes sure that only the right participants are present. The participants either have information to supply, or they need the information being supplied. The meeting doesn't drag on, and it ends with a clear understanding of follow-up tasks.

Good meetings are about "communication." They help the group get its work done and make it more productive. At the risk of overstating the case, people who "hate meetings" are often people who don't communicate as well as they could.

That is not to say that many meetings are not wastes of time. Speakers drone on. Nothing is decided. Notes are not kept. People are included for political rather than operational needs. However, not having the meeting usually doesn't solve those problems. The same dysfunctional conduct will take place in another form and added to it will be further disjointedness.

Memos, letters, policies, etc., are important parts of communication, but they lack the give and take, the shared experience of flesh and blood (present even in electronically facilitated "meetings").

E-Mail Discipline

E-mail follows the same dynamics. It is a powerful tool that can easily be misused.
Banning or restricting it through time-based rules doesn't strike me as a good or realistic solution. I think it is fantasy to expect that a full or partial ban on e-mail would be productive, but we do need to become (and probably are becoming) more disciplined as the medium matures. Expect to see more commonsense "rules" evolve.

Personal e-mails and personal IMs are like personal phone calls—verboten beyond certain minimal allowances, depending on the workplace. Using e-mail to avoid personal contact is like any other "over the transom" aggression.
Copying dozens of people who have little to do with the subject or project will be seen for what it is—self-aggrandizing politics.

Source: BLR

10 Best and Worst Jobs for 2009

2009-01-21T12:19:00.001-08:00

A new report identifies the best and worst jobs for 2009.

The “2009 Jobs Rated Report” by CareerCast.com, a new job portal, factored the environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands, security and stress of 200 occupations. In compiling its rankings, CareerCast.com used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau among other sources.

CareerCast.com found that many of the “best” jobs were “well-paying office jobs” while many that were rated the “worst” were “physically demanding, high-risk” occupations.

Here are the 10 best jobs of 2009 as rated by CareerCast.com:

Mathematician
Actuary
Statistician
Biologist
Software Engineer
Computer Systems Analyst
Historian
Sociologist
Industrial Designer
Accountant

Here are the 10 worst jobs according to the report:

Lumberjack
Dairy Farmer
Taxi Driver
Seaman
Emergency Medical Technician
Roofer
Garbage Collector
Welder
Roustabout
Ironworker

2009-01-20T19:06:00.000-08:00

I didn't vote for Barack Hussein Obama but I do respect the Office of the Presidency. I do want President Obama to be successful, because that means that our Country will be successful.

The media made the inauguration today seem like the 2nd coming of Christ......it was disgusting. The supporters of Obama are so anti-bush. Read this about how the crowd treated President Bush today. http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/01/20/bush-mocked-as-he-arrives-on-inauguration-dais/

I wonder if George Bush is sleeping in his own bed tonight thankful for God's blessings, his family and that his term as President is complete. I personally didn't agree with everything that President Bush did while in office, but I have never agreed with anyone on everything. That's the great part about being an American.

Although I didn't vote for President Obama, he is my President and I respect that. I pray every day that God will provide him the wisdom to govern our country and I pray that he will be successful. Unlike the Bush bashing of the liberal left, I don't hate President Obama simply because we don't share the same values or ideas.

Based on the actions of the Obama supporters and the media putting President Obama on a very high pedestal, I pray, on this historic day, that he can meet the grand expectations that have been placed on him.

New Law Provides Some Relief

2009-01-20T08:29:00.000-08:00

The Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, which was signed into law by President Bush on Dec. 23, 2008, granted some relief to the higher funding requirements imposed by the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006 (see New Law Eases Under-Funded Pensions' Plight).

Plans that fall below the PPA's target funding percentage for a particular year (e.g., 92 percent in 2008) now are permitted to fund up to a specified funding percentage for that year, instead of 100 percent of the target.

In 2009, pension watchers expect that employers will return to Congress and make their case for additional relief from pension funding rules. Under the 2008 legislation, for instance, pension sponsors must still continue to raise their funding levels each year. Plan sponsors had lobbied unsuccessfully to keep the funding target at 92 percent for 2009 (it's set to rise to 94 percent). In addition, further relief might become available as part of the economic stimulus plan being worked on by Congress.

However, despite the new Recovery Act and the potential for additional relief, "we believe that a significant number of companies could fall under the 80 percent funded status trigger that could result in additional funding, benefit restrictions or plan freezes,” Hewitt's Adrian Hartshorn warns. (To learn more about funding requirement under the Recovery Act, see Pension Contributions Set to Triple in 2009, Despite Funding Relief.)

Are the DOL Overtime rules outdated?

2009-01-10T08:31:00.000-08:00

Do you have inside sales people earning between $70,000 and $100,000 a year? Do you want them to make more money because if they make more money the company makes more money? We all know that sales people (or any commissioned employee) thrive on working hard which means more than 40 hours a week typically, because they know what it takes to succeed and in return make more money. Did you know that according to wage and hour rules, they have to clock in and out? Many companies don't realize this, but it is true. They have to clock in and out because they don't fit one of the very narrow exemptions under the wage and hour law.

Many sales people regard this as demeaning, and resent rules restricting overtime. They don't think of themselves as "9 to 5ers," and they often want to put in extra time. Those who are commissioned think they can earn extra money, and (being a capitalist, myself) I'm all for that.

Others know that putting in extra hours is sometimes the price of admission if they want to advance in their careers. Salespeople are particularly resentful. One woman recently said to me, "I've worked in sales all my life. I've never had to punch the time clock."

Unless an employee fits into one of the official "exemptions" (administrative, professional, executive, computer, or outside sales), you have to pay time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. This can be a hefty expense for a highly paid person, especially in today's economy, so it is important to monitor and restrict overtime. (To add insult to injury, the rule for computing time and a half for commissioned salespeople is maddeningly complex.)

What of the employee who said she'd never before had to punch the clock? There are three possibilities. One, her prior employer was violating the law and should have been paying overtime. Two, she was in outside sales, which can be exempt. Three, she fit in the far narrower inside sales exemption.

Most likely, it was the first. There is no question that there are widespread violations of wage and hour laws, whether intentional or not. Employers that violate the law take some pretty big risks. All it takes is one complaint from a disgruntled employee, and a wage-and-hour audit can yield a lot of aggravation and some stiff fines.

One of the senior managers at BLR recently cited this as a case of "liberalism at its worst." A law that made a lot of sense when it was first passed, 70 years ago, has been extended to its illogical extreme. Instead of protecting employees from overbearing and unfair employers, it prohibits highly compensated, ambitious employees from pursuing their version of the American dream. The law continues to make a lot of sense for low-paid employees doing manual work, but it is so "20th century" in other aspects of its application.

So is it time for the DOL to make some changes?? We think so!

Source BLR

Happy New Years

2008-12-31T07:57:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year!

As you get ready to kick off 2009, this is a great time to review policies and procedures for your employees. Review your employee handbooks, reiterate polices that may have been conveniently forgotten by your staff, do performance evaluations, review job descriptions.............and this year............make sure you are classifying your employees correctly.

The DOL will be looking for Wage and Hour Violations this year, so be prepared!

Here, to get you started, are some of the jobs that the feds think are exempt (E) or nonexempt (NE) and their comments.

Note that these E/NE classifications are not set in stone, but they are a good starting point for your analysis. (Taken from BLR's FLSA Wage & Hour Self-Audit Guide.)

Examiner or grader—NE. Such as an employee that grades lumber, because the employee usually performs work involving the comparison of products with established standards that are frequently catalogued.

Executive assistant—E. If working for a business owner or senior executive of a large business if the employee, without specific instructions or prescribed procedures, and has been delegated authority regarding matters of significance.

Secretary—NE.

Human resources manager—E. Assuming this person formulates, interprets, or implements employment policies.

Personnel clerk—NE. This person "screens" applicants to obtain data regarding their minimum qualifications and fitness for employment.

Purchasing agent—E. If the job includes the authority to bind the company on significant purchases, even if the employee must consult with top management officials for certain purchase commitments.

Comparison shopper for a retail store—NE. If the employee merely reports to the buyer the prices at a competitor's store.

Certified public accountant—E. And many other accountants who are not certified public accountants but perform similar job duties.

Accounting clerk/bookkeeper—NE. As well as other employees who normally perform a great deal of routine work.

Paralegal—NE. Because an advanced specialized academic degree is not a standard prerequisite for entry into the field.

Driver who sells—E. If the employee has a primary duty of making sales, all work performed incidental to and in conjunction with the employee's own sales efforts, including loading, driving, or delivering products, is exempt work.

If you have questions about how you are classifying your employees.........CALL ME!!

Source: BLR

3 Deadly Sins of Interviewers-and how to avoid them!

2008-12-29T08:20:00.000-08:00

From BLR

Want to avoid that? Avoid these three deadly interviewing sins. Fortunately, it's not that hard.

Deadly Sin #1—Failure to Prepare

Before you start recruiting you need to do two things: Clarify what you are looking for, and decide how you will determine whether a candidate has it.
"I want to start interviewing yesterday!"

Managers are always in a hurry to fill their empty spots, so there's always pressure to instantly start posting, advertising, and interviewing.

Not so fast. That's a recipe for disaster. As the old saw goes, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."

Similarly, if you jump into the hiring process without defining what you are looking for:
· Good people won't be attracted to apply—they'll sense that if the announcement is only vaguely defined then the job's responsibilities might also be.
· Unqualified people won't self-select out, so you'll have to deal with hordes of them.
· Most important, you'll have no meaningful basis on which to judge the candidates.

Before launching a hiring campaign, take some time to determine exactly what you need. What abilities, skills, credentials, and knowledge are required? Talk to incumbents, talk to the people who work with the position, review the job description.

When you're clear on that, craft a concise statement of qualifications for posting and advertising, and to give it to agencies and other sources of candidates.

How Will You Know a Candidate Is Qualified?

Next, you need to figure out how you'll know if candidates have what you are looking for. What interview questions will help you find out?

If you start to interview before taking this step, you will:

· Spend your interview time thinking up questions instead of listening to what the candidate is saying

· Leave out critical questions (like salary expectations, willingness to relocate, possession of a required degree or certificate)

· Fall into the conversation trap of discussing sports and the weather, or worse—family issues and other topics that could spell legal trouble

· Lose consistency. When you go to compare candidates, you'll have nothing to go on because they'll have answered different questions. If you focused on technical issues with one, and
management issues with the other, how will you compare the two?

Deadly Sin #2—Falling Prey to Stealth Discrimination

The second thing that happens without a plan is that you can easily end up discriminating, even when you didn't intend to. For example:

Playing favorites ("I hire people I like."). With no good selection strategy, you tend to end up with someone you "feel good about"— probably someone who is just like you. This has the obvious effect of keeping out people who aren't like you—in other words, discriminating.

Stereotyping ("X's can't X."). When you don't have a good system for measuring candidates, it's easy to fall back on stereotypes. For example:
"Women aren't strong enough." "Men aren't compassionate enough." "X's aren't good at X."

Patronizing/paternalizing/maternalizing ("X's shouldn't X."). This is a special form of stereotyping that seems well-intentioned, but is, in general, discriminatory. For example:
"Terry is a city person, and won't want to relocate.""Parents with young children shouldn't travel.""Women shouldn't travel alone.""Pregnant women can't be subjected to pressure."

De facto ("Gee, I just never seem to hire X's"). One of the more subtle forms of discrimination is called "de facto." In these situations, there is never an intention to not hire or promote certain types of people-it just never seems to happen.

For example, a hiring manager says he's eager to hire women in a certain job, but, although many qualified women have applied, of the last 50 hires, all 50 were men.

Have you ever fallen into any of these mistakes?

Source: BLR

What Small Business Can Expect From Obama

2008-12-23T08:06:00.000-08:00

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_72/s0812015612482.htm

Free Quickbooks

2008-12-20T05:23:00.000-08:00

Are you considering buying Quickbooks this year?

Get it free on Monday, December 22!

http://techspheres.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/free-quickbooks-pro-monday-only/

Bizarre Interview Questions

2008-12-19T11:10:00.001-08:00

I have had my fair share of crazy answers to interview questions that I have asked, but I found this survey that BLR did regarding questions being asked by the interviewer.......all I can say is please don't ever ask these questions!

So here are the worst or most humorous questions readers submitted:

"If you were a carousel, what type of music would you play?"
One of our managers proposed this question. It still makes me laugh, but only because it was never used in the actual interview!

"Who cuts the lawn in your family, you or your husband?"
The CFO asked me this one when I was interviewing for an Administrative Assistant position at an insurance company in the early 1990s.

"Does your spouse support your efforts to enter this profession?"
During an interview for a position as a police officer, I answered that question saying that I was hopeful my husband would "come around." When told that I did not pass the interview. I contacted HR for feedback. The director, a male, acknowledged that while the panel liked my overall answers, they were concerned by my answer to the "spouse support" question. (They justified this question by stating that there is a high divorce rate in this profession.)
The director then asked, "What will you do if your husband ultimately does not support you?" I replied that I wouldn't divorce him. The director said that he agreed with the decision to reject me because he certainly wouldn't want his wife to be a cop.

"How do you handle rumors and gossip in the workplace, especially if it is about you?"
I gave my answer but asked them, "Is there a problem with rumors and gossip in this office?" I respectfully declined their offer of employment—it must have been pretty bad if they were asking that question during the interview!

"How many children do you have?"
My daughter was also asked "What will you do for child care?" and "Who carries the medical insurance, you or your husband?" The interview was conducted by a team and not one of them objected or reacted when the questions were asked.

"If I were to ask your husband if you have a bad time during PMS, what would he say?"
Being young and really needing the job, I told him he would say that I was fine. He then explained that they had a secretary that "once a month" would be so cranky no one could even talk to her.

"If you were a vegetable, what would you be?"
I was too flabbergasted to respond to this CEO's question, but I got the position.

"I see on your résumé that all your previous experience is out of town. What brings you to this town?"
This question was asked of my wife. It was a military town, and the point was to see if I was in the military.

"Does your parents' house have a swimming pool?"
My 16-year-old was also asked, "What kind of car do you drive?" and "Are your parents divorced?"

"So when did you graduate from college?"
I took some time off of school so if the interviewer was fishing for my age, she got it wrong!

"Are you wearing a skirt or pants?"
A male interviewer seated at his desk asked me this one. Then he asked me to stand up. He then took notes about it. I was flabbergasted. I didn't get the job.

"What is the limit that you could earn under Social Security without losing any benefits?"
Not knowing any better, my husband told the interviewer that he could earn any amount because he was of full retirement age. He did not get the job.

"So, you are getting married soon, does that mean you will be leaving us to go have a baby?"
I got this question from a company president in the late 1980s.

"Do you live with anyone?"
I asked how that question was relevant to the position. The interviewer said that I could not possibly afford to rent or buy on my own. I said nothing. I think she was trying to get me to say that I was living with my boyfriend, which I was. I didn't get the job. The company went under a few years later.

How to Layoff--Euphemistically

2008-12-19T11:03:00.000-08:00

This today from BLR's HR Strange but True!

If you must face the prospect of laying off workers, better dig out that old Roget's Thesaurus from college--you may need it. Everyone is finding ways to obfuscate the dreaded word "layoff."
BusinessWeek writer Jena McGregor reports in the December 22 issue that employers ready to shed workers are coming up with quite creative euphemisms--beyond "downsizing" and "rightsizing"--to spin and soften the bad news.

Here are some of her linguistic findings, which she calls "rosy words for pink slips," with some of their origins:

"Synergy-related headcount adjustment goal" (Siemans)
"Action to simplify our organization" (eBay)
"De-verticalization"
"Offboarding," "Rationalizing," and "Surplusing" (these all sound cold and cruel to us)
"Result of a strategic review of strategies" (Ha!)
"RIF-ing"
"Chao youyu" (from Hong Kong: it means to have one's squid cooked)

"Companies think if [they're] not so bald and straight about the term, it will ease the impact ... ease the pain a little," says Challenger, Gray & Christmas CEO John Challenger in the article.

Year End Tax Tips

2008-12-01T06:36:00.000-08:00

Is your IRA tanking? If so, you may want to look at converting to a Roth and take advantage of the tax savings. Conversely if you switched to a Roth this year and your Roth lost value, you can unconvert by December 31 and you won't owe any 2008 tax on the conversion. Then you can convert back to the Roth in 2009 and pay less tax. You are allowed only one conversion of an IRA to a Roth each year, so plan accordingly.

The standard mileage rate will be lower in 2009 for business driving. The rate drops to 55 cents per mile next year. That's a decrease of 3 1/2 cents a mile from the rate that took effect in July. The rate for medical travel and moving falls from 24 cents a mile in 2009....down 3 cents from the rate in the last half of 2008. Remember to claim the cost of parking and tolls if you use the mileage rate. The rate does not include them.

Planning to claim the bonus depreciation for 2008 on your federal return? At least 23 states will not allow the write-off. Some states disallow the break in full and others require the businesses to add back part of the amount written off on their federal return.

The correct due date for businesses to give a copy of forms 1099, 1098, and W2-G's is February 17, 2009k not March 2 as the instructions state. So be careful or you could get a fine!

Lastly, factor in the current economic woes into your plans for year-end gift giving. Giving stocks that have declined in value to your children or grandchildren saves estate tax and the future stock rebounds are out of your estate. Also, you can take advantage of the housing slump and pass your home on to your kids. You can create a personal residence trust which transfers ownership of the house but allows you to use it. The subsequent appreciation is exempt from estate tax.

Talk to your tax/financial planner sooner rather than later!!!

Source: Kiplinger

The 'Biggest Turkey' Ever Hired

2008-11-21T10:27:00.001-08:00

This from BLR today........Strange but True!

A recent survey asked hiring managers to describe the "biggest turkey" they ever hired. The responses should leave no doubt as to why they considered the employee a dud.
While hiring is a rarer bird these days due to downsizing, employers still seeking talent find hiring new people to be more daunting than ever because "turkeys" are still lurking in the applicant pool, according to a recent survey by Caliper, an international management consulting firm.

The October 2008 survey of 190 hiring managers found that 69 percent of respondents find it easier to work with "the devil they know" in poorly performing employees rather than taking a chance on an "unknown" new hire. Just 31 percent of those queried find it harder to manage the people they have than to select new employees.

For some employers, these hiring concerns have proven to be well founded. With Thanksgiving fast approaching, Caliper asked managers to describe the "biggest turkey you ever hired."

Among the responses:

"A fellow who, after 1 week on the job, asked to go to Florida. We said no, so he called in sick for a week and then came back with a tan!"

"We hired someone who could barely do a single task."

"We hired a woman and the second day on the job, we found her taking a nap in the office of the CEO."

"One gentleman came in late, left early, then told me, 'I'm going to be sick tomorrow, so I won't be in'."

"In difficult economic environments, people are a company's most powerful competitive advantage," said Herb Greenberg, Caliper's founder, president, and CEO. "Every new hire provides a precious opportunity that employers don't want to squander. This adds to the pressure to 'work smarter' in the hiring process and to avoid the costs of a poor decision."

Source: Caliper/BLR

'Oh, Sure--She's Exempt.' Uh Huh.

2008-11-18T07:51:00.000-08:00

Misclassification can lead to big-bucks fines and lawsuits. First, if you've misclassified one employee as exempt, you've probably misclassified many others as well. Second, misclassifying almost invariably means you owe a large amount of overtime.

For most employers, the main exempt classifications are administrative, executive, professional, and outside sales. (Certain specialized computer personnel, certain highly compensated employees, certain retail sales employees, and employees covered by the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) may also be exempt.)

The Three Tests

To be exempt under the administrative, professional, or executive exemptions, employees must pass three tests:

--Salary level test. The salary level required for employees to be exempt is at least $455 per week.
--Salary basis test. To qualify for exemption, employees must be paid on a salary or fee basis.
--Duties test. In addition, to qualify for an exemption, employees must pass a duties test. In making the duties determination, titles mean nothing—only duties count.

Here is a brief summary of the duties tests:

Administrative Exemption Duties Test

--Primary duty is office or no manual work directly related to management or general business operations of the employer or its customers,or
--Performance of administrative functions directly related to academic instruction or training in an educational establishment or of a department or subdivision of one,and
--Duties include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

Executive Exemption Duties Test

--Duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which he or she is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision.
--Employee customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees.
--Employee has the authority to hire or fire other employees or provide suggestions and recommendations that will be given particular weight.

Professional Exemption Duties Test

--Primary duty is work that requires knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction (also called the "learned professional" exemption), or
--Primary duty is work as a teacher in the activity of imparting knowledge, or
--Primary duty is work that requires invention, imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor (also called the "creative professional" exemption).

Outside Sales Exemption Duties Test

--Primary duty consists of making sales or obtaining orders or contracts for services or the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer.
--Customarily and regularly work away from the employer's place or places of business.

(Note: The salary test requirements do not apply to the outside sales exemption.)

Don’t get caught in the trap of, let me pay them casual labor for a few weeks and “try” them out before putting them on payroll either. That won’t fly in an audit. If you aren’t sure if you are compliant, call me!!!

Source: BLR

Want a Job with Obama? Open Up Your Diary

2008-11-14T12:54:00.000-08:00

Sorry for no posts this week.........I've been under the weather. Here is an interesting article I received today from BLR HR Strange But True!!

President-elect Barack Obama has some job openings, but if you are interested, be prepared to give his hiring team virtually everything you have ever written (publicly, on the Internet, in instant messages, in a résumé, on job applications, even in diaries), because he wants to know about all about you and your past.

The New York Times obtained a questionnaire that the Obama team is giving to anyone interested in a high-ranking job with the president-elect's administration.
If you read the questionnaire, you can see that Obama wants to know some detailed information. One portion, for example, tells prospective members of the administration:
If you keep or have ever kept a diary that contains anything that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect, please describe.

We are pretty sure everyone's diary contains some embarrassing information. Imagine telling president-elect Obama about how you claimed to your 5th grade class that you were dating Punky Brewster (aka Soleil Moon Frye) or the time no girl would dance with you at the 8th grade semiformal because your clothes smelled of the fish you ate for dinner. Maybe that was just our journal/diary.

In another section, the questionnaire asks applicants to provide information, including information about family members, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a source of embarrassment to the applicant, his or her family, or the President-elect. Shouldn't the question be: Who doesn't have someone in their lives who is the source of great embarrassment?
If you ever had an employee under your supervision who was accused of harassment or other workplace misconduct, you'll have to disclose that too--along with a description of how it was resolved.

Obama wants to know about any potential source of embarrassment related to blog comments (under real or fake names), e-mail, and instant messaging, too. We think that could sink a lot of candidacies (those chain letters may come back to haunt a few folks). In addition, be sure to list the URL for your Facebook and MySpace pages. Obama would like to see them too. Make sure you clean up your profile before you apply, though.

The form has 63 questions in all. You can read it at:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf

Source: New York Times and BLR