July 23, 2009- Update on LLR's Immigration Investigations and Site Visits Source: South Carolina eAuthority, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. The South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulations (LLR) investigators are continuing to visit employer sites unannounced to enforce the South Carolina Illegal Immigration Reform Act. They are not only requesting documentation to proves that the employer is not "knowingly or intentionally" employing unauthorized workers, but they are also asking to speak to employees to question them on the employment verification process. Read more. Healthy Families Act Introduced The Healthy Families Act has been introduced in the both the House (H.R. 2460) and Senate (S. 1152).  Sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), the bill would require employers to provide employees with up to 56 hours of paid sick leave. SHRM believes a paid sick leave mandate as outlined in the Healthy Families Act would limit an employer’s flexibility in designing a benefits package that meets the needs of their unique workforce, resulting in significant costs for employers as well as a potential loss to employees who prefer other benefits rather than paid sick leave. As such, we are opposed to the Healthy Families Act, as currently written.  Background The Healthy Families Act (HFA) would require public and private employers with 15 or more employees to allow employees to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.  An employee begins accruing the sick leave at commencement of employment and is able to begin using the leave after 60 days.  The paid sick time could be used for the employee’s own medical needs or to care for a child, parent, spouse, or any other blood relative, or for an absence resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.  Other key provisions of interest to HR professionals include: Coordination with Existing Federal and State Leave Laws:  The HFA specifically states that the Act does not supersede any state or local law that provides greater paid sick time or leave rights.  Sick leave required under the HFA would be in addition to any leave provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act or state workers compensation laws. Effect on Existing Paid Leave Benefits:  Under the HFA, if an employer’s existing paid leave policy fails to meet all the requirements of the Act, the employer’s plan would need to be amended to comply with the HFA requirements. Impact on Absence Control or No Fault Attendance Policies:  The HFA would prohibit an employer from counting any leave taken by an employee under the legislation from counting as leave under an employer’s absence control or no-fault attendance policy. SHRM Position Rather than a one-size-fits-all government approach, where federal and state laws often conflict and compliance is determined under regulatory silos, SHRM advocates a comprehensive workplace flexibility policy that, for the first time, responds to the diverse needs of employees and employers and reflects different work environments, union representation, industries and organizational size.   SHRM has developed a comprehensive workplace flexibility policy that responds to the diverse needs of today’s employees and employers.  For a 21st century workplace flexibility policy to be effective, SHRM believes that all employers should be encouraged to provide paid leave for illness, vacation and personal days to accommodate the needs of employees and their family members.  In return, employers who choose to provide paid leave would be considered to have satisfied all federal, state and local leave requirements.   For a 21st Century workplace flexibility policy to be effective, SHRM believes the policy must meet the following principles: 1)   Shared Needs – The policy must meet the needs of both employees and employers.  Rather than an inflexible government approach, policies governing employee leave should be designed to encourage employers to offer a paid leave program (i.e., vacation, sick time, personal days or “paid time off” (PTO) bank that meets baseline standards to qualify for a statutorily defined “safe harbor.”   2)   Employee Leave –  Employers should be encouraged voluntarily to provide paid leave to help employees meet work and personal life obligations through the safe harbor leave standard.   3)   Flexibility – A federal workplace leave policy should encourage maximum flexibility for both employees and employers.   4)   Scalability – A federal workplace leave policy must avoid a mandated one-size-fits-all approach and instead recognize that paid leave offerings should accommodate the increasing diversity in workforce needs and environments.   5)   Flexible Work Options – Employees and employers can benefit from a public policy that meets the diverse needs of the workplace in supporting and encouraging flexible work options such as telecommuting, flexible work arrangements, job sharing and compressed or reduced schedules.  Federal statutes that impede these offerings should be updated to provide employers and employees with maximum flexibility to balance work and personal needs.  To access a complete and detailed description of these principles, please click HERE.   Action Needed   Please write your Members of Congress TODAY and urge them to refrain from signing on as a cosponsor to the Healthy Families Act and instead, pledge to work with SHRM in developing a workplace flexibility plan that balances the interest of employers and employees. To write your elected officials using HRVoice, follow these steps:   1)     Log onto HR Voice by clicking HERE and enter your member number and last name. 2)     Under the heading “Take Immediate Action on these Hot Issues,” click on:   “VOTE NO on the Healthy Families Act” and 3)     Feel free to personalize your letters by including specific information about the organization you work for, your experiences in the workplace, and why this legislation would negatively impact your organization.  Just place your cursor on the text of the letter where you would like to edit.

Numerous State Legislatures Grappling with HR Policy Issues  

 

 

4/17/2009

 

 

While most of the media’s focus has been on legislative developments in Washington, many state legislatures throughout the country have been busy debating issues that are critical for HR professionals.

Here are just a few examples of legislative developments in various state capitols … and which might be coming to your state soon:

Misclassification of Independent Contractors
Whether to classify a worker as an “independent contractor” or an “employee” might be confusing for some employers – and HR professionals who are often left to make the call.  Employers in Maryland need to take notice, the Maryland General Assembly has passed and Governor Martin O’Malley (D) is expected to sign into law “The Workplace Fraud Act of 2009,” which increases penalties for employers who misclassify employees as “independent contractors.”

Paid Sick Leave
While many groups (including SHRM) believe that the U.S. Congress may soon debate proposals to mandate paid sick leave, some states aren’t waiting for Washington to act.  Although different approaches are being proposed in various state legislatures, most would allow employees to take paid time off to care for themselves, a sick relative or to deal with incidents of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.  In most instances, the amount of leave provided ranges from five to seven days a year for full-time employees, with a lesser amount afforded part-time workers.  Some of the states that are debating paid leave legislation include: CA, CO, CT, IL, MA, MT, NC, OR, and VT.

Workplace/Parking Lot Gun Bills
On March 31, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. signed into law S.B. 78, a bill requiring private employers to allow employees keep personal firearms in their private vehicles while parked on company property.  Utah becomes the 8^th state to have a law on the books that would permit employees to bring firearms on work premises as long as they remain locked and out of plain view in the employee’s private vehicle.  Similar proposals were considered but not enacted in IN, NM, VA, and WV; however, other “weapons in the workplace”-type bills are still being debated in AL, AZ, IL, MI, MO, MT, NC, SC, TN and TX.

Immigration Reform/Mandated Use of E-Verify
While President Obama said that comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority during his first year in office, it is unlikely that Congress will have the time or interest to deal with this complex and divisive issue.  However, recognizing that immigration reform is a key concern at the state level, it remains an important issue for many state legislators.  One proposal that has surfaced in many states would require all or some employers (notably the public-sector and state contractors) to verify the employment eligibility of new hires using the U.S. government’s E-Verify system.  Last week, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed legislation (LB 403) to do just that.  Other states that have recently considered this type of legislation include AL, AZ, AR, FL, ID, NV, OR, TN, and WV.

If you have any questions about these or other HR policy proposals pending in your state, please contact Bernard Coleman, SHRM’s State Affairs Specialist, or click HERE to view what HR legislation is pending in your state.

Effective Date of E-Verify Rule Delayed Third Time 

April 17, 2009                                                          By SHRM Online Staff

The federal government has pushed back, for the third time, the effective date of a new rule requiring federal contractors to use the federal government’s E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system. The latest effective date is June 30, 2009.

E-Verify is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ system that organizations with federal contracts would be required to use to determine if their new hires and existing employees were authorized to work in the United States.

The rule, which would amend an existing regulation, originally was to take effect Jan. 15, 2009.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) challenged the legality of the rule in a lawsuit filed Dec. 23, 2008, noting that the system’s reliability has come into question and that use of the system was originally intended to be voluntary. A Government Accountability Office report to Congress reiterated long-standing criticisms of E-Verify, SHRM Online reported July 14, 2008.

SHRM is concerned, says Nancy Hammer, manager of SHRM’s regulatory and judicial affairs, “that the rule exceeds the government’s authority by mandating use of the E-Verify program, which was designed as a voluntary pilot project, and by mandating the re-verification of existing federal contract employees, currently not allowed.”

E-Verify would apply to federal contracts with a performance period of more than 120 days and a value of more than $100,000, according to an April 16, 2009. statement from Andrew B. Greenfield, a partner in Frogmen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP, a Washington, D.C. law firm that writes periodically about legal issues for SHRM Online.

Service and construction subcontracts of a covered contract would be required to include the E-Verify clause if the subcontract’s value is more than $3,000, he noted.

Exemptions to the rule would include contracts for items that are available commercially “off the shelf” or that require only minor modifications, federal contracts for food and agricultural products shipped as bulk cargo and contracts for work performed outside the United States.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, HR Policy Association and the American Council on International Personnel joined SHRM in the lawsuit, which seeks to have the planned rule rescinded. Earlier, the U.S. Justice Department rescheduled the date from Jan. 15 to Feb. 20, 2009.

SHRM is hopeful, Hammer said, that “this additional delay of the rule allows more time for the government to re-evaluate its position and consider SHRM’s concerns.” In light of the delay in the rule’s effective date, she added, the parties have agreed to extend the stay of the lawsuit.