KPA Blog

Posts Tagged ‘HR compliance’

ICE Crackdown on Employers of Illegal Immigrants

Friday, March 11th, 2011

The office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security, announced a new audit office, the Employment Compliance Inspection Center. The center will be staffed with specialists who will reveiw I-9 employee files collected during audits. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010, ICE conducted audits of more than 2,740 companies, nearly twice as many as the previous year. The agency levied a record $7 million in civil fines on businesses that employed illegal workers. Employers must complete the I-9 form within three days of hire and all documentation must be accurate.

Tamara Lischer, PHR, CA-PHR and HotlinkHR Client advocate dicusses best practices for ensuring your I-9 forms are in compliance.

Tags: Enforcement, HR best practice, HR compliance, I-9, illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Posted in HR: Industry Updates | 2 Comments »

Cupid’s Arrow May Find You At Work

Monday, February 14th, 2011

Long hours at work and increased socialization as a workplace expectation may have lead to an increase in romance in the workplace reports several recent studies. The flip side is that while employee may be finding love at work they are also concerned about the impact to their careers.

Vault.com reports that 59 percent of 2,083 respondents to recent survey had dated a colleague. Slightly more than one-fourth dated a subordinate, and 18 percent dated their supervisor. A Career Builder survey reports that more than one-third of 3,910 full-time U.S. employees have made a love connection in the workplace and nearly two-thirds are not keeping secret a once-taboo type of relationship.

The Vault.com survey also found that thirty-eight percent thought a co-worker gained a professional advantage because of a romantic relationship with a supervisor or co-worker, and 31 percent were uncomfortable with a co-worker’s office romance. The Vault.com respondents indicated the following behaviors as not acceptable for workplace relationships:

•Dating someone in the same department (29 percent).
•Dating someone who is working on a project with you (29 percent).
•Dating someone you work with who is from a different company (22 percent).
Eleven percent thought a workplace romance is never acceptable.

So can Cupid’s arrow kill your career and is it worth it? It depends on which survey you read. Sixty-five percent of workers in the Vault.com survey said the economy was not a factor in pursuing a workplace liaison. However, 70 percent of 423 registered Monster users think that dating a co-worker openly could jeopardize job security or advancement, according to a survey in the U.S. for Spherion Staffing Services, a division of SFN Group Inc. Only one-third of those surveyed in 2008 were hesitant to start an office romance.

John Heins, senior vice president and chief HR officer at SFN Group acknowledged that many companies do not have clear policies or workers are not aware of them. 36 percent of the respondents to the Monster survey work at companies without such a policy; 43 percent don’t know if their company has a policy. “If office policies aren’t clearly communicated or don’t exist at all, people can’t measure the potential consequences of how an office romance will be perceived or handled by the company,” Heins said.

Employers should have a clearly stated and non discriminatory policy for office relationship. The policy should eliminate any cause for possible harassment or discrimination lawsuits (employees and mangers cannot date if there is a reporting relationship for example). Have an attorney review the policy and have all employees read and acknowledge it.

Employees should endeavor to keep all workplace interactions (even with your sweetie) at the highest level of professionalism. Your goal is that know that no one knows that you are even dating by your behavior. However in today’s world you should also limit office gossip by informing co-workers and manager prior to status updates on social media sites.

Join the conversation: What do you think about romance in the workplace?

References:

SHRM Online Newsletter, 2/11/2010, Every Day is Valentine’s Day for Some Workers,

www.Vault .com 2/10/2011 http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/vcm/detail/Career-Advice/Office-Romance/2011-Office-Romance-Survey-Results?id=53933&filter_type=0&filter_id=0

www. Career Builder. com,2/10/2011 http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr619&sd=2/10/2011&ed=12/31/2011&siteid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr619_

www. shperion.com, 2/11/2011 http://spherion.mediaroom.com/pressroom/index.php?s=43&item=1034

Tags: employment discrimination, HR best practice, HR compliance, romantic relationship, workplace relationships
Posted in HR: Industry Updates | Leave a Comment »

Successful Dealer Discusses “Hiring Right”

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

Hiring the right employee is critical to your businesses success. Unfortunately many companies treat recruiting and hiring as a necessary evil, not a key business function, and do not invest the time and effort to hire right. Successful Dealer just published a great article by Denise Rodini- “Hiring Right”- that provides an overview of best practices with practical tips and tools on how to hire the right way from John Boggs, a leading labor and employment attorney and KPA partner. John is counsel to CNCDA (California New Car Dealer Association), was an original developer of the HotlinkHR program, and has over 26 years experience working with dealerships. He knows of what he speaks!

The “Hiring Right” article is based on the KPA webinar “Bullet Proof Your Employment Practices” which can be downloaded for free at http://www.kpaonline.com/authorizedFiles/bullet/bullet.html

Join the conversation: How important is a consistent process that includes background checking and assessment testing to hire right?

Tags: employment practices, Hiring Right, HR best practice, HR compliance, new car dealer, recruiting
Posted in Employee Relations, HR: Industry Updates | Leave a Comment »

To Pay or Not To Pay for Snow Days

Monday, February 7th, 2011

Punxsutawney Phil, the famous groundhog weather forecaster has predicted that winter will be short and pleasant and springtime is only six weeks away. Hard to believe when much of the nation is blanketed with snow, freezing rain and bitter cold. Whether or not Phil is right and winter is on the way out it might be a good time to review and update your inclement weather pay policy before the next round of bad weather.

Wage Payment Requirements
For non-exempt employees, compliance under federal law is straightforward. Non-exempt employees must only be paid for time actually worked. The FLSA (Fair Labor Standard Act) does not require non-exempt employees to be paid when they do not come to work due to inclement weather. However, some states have “reporting time pay” laws that require non-exempt employees be paid whenever the employee reports to work as required or requested by the employer, even if no work is available. States with “reporting time laws” are California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon (minors only), and Rhode Island. Employers in these states should consult with their legal counsel to understand the implications of the state laws for their pay policies.

Compliance with the FLSA for exempt employees is more complex. Exempt employees must be paid their full salary for any week in which they perform any work, unless a deduction is specifically permitted under 29 C.F.R. § 541 (b). Section 541.602(b) (1) allows deductions for full-day absences taken for “personal reasons.” So is a snow day a “personal reason” for taking a day off? DOL Opinion Letter FLSA2005-46 confirms that deductions of full day increments may be made from an exempt employee’s salary if the employer is open for business and the employee chooses not to report to work. However no deductions from salary can be made if the employer closes operations. DOL Opinion Letter FLSA2005-41 states that since employers are not required under the FLSA to provide any paid leave to employees, “there is no prohibition on an employer giving vacation time and later requiring that such vacation time be taken on a specific day(s).” Employers who provide paid leave may require employees to take that leave for full or a partial day absence when the offices are closed for inclement weather or “other disasters”.
To sum up the requirements for wage payment and HR best practices due to inclement weather or other disasters:
1. Non-exempt employees do not have be paid when they do not work due to inclement weather or a disaster under the FLSA. Payment may be required by state law and employers in these states should consult with legal counsel to fully understand the implications “reporting time pay” law for their pay policies.
2. If the company is open for business, an employer may make deductions, in full-day increments only, from the salary of exempt employees who do not come to work due to inclement weather or a disaster.
3. If the company closes operations, the employer cannot make deductions from salary, but can require the employee to use accrued paid leave, either in partial-day or full-day increments.
4. Beyond the legal requirements for wage payment employers should consider if providing for some form of compensation during severe weather or other disasters is a key benefit that could assist in attracting and retaining employees.
5. Have a written policy for wage payments that has been reviewed by qualified legal counsel. Provide a copy to each employee and have them acknowledge the policy in writing or by electronic signature.
For more information on compliance with the FSLA and wage payments download KPA’s free webinar “The Essentials of Wage and Hour Law for Dealerships” and “Advanced Wage and How Law for Dealerships” at http://www.kpaonline.com/news-and-events/webinars/recorded-webinars.html

Tags: HR best practice, HR compliance, inclement weather, snow day
Posted in DOL, HR: Industry Updates | Leave a Comment »

Always Confirm Employment Eligibility With E-Verify

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens Make sure that you complete an I-9 form within three days of hire and take the extra step of confirming eligibility to work in the United States but using E- Verify. Not all employers are required to use E-Verify but every employer should.. E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use – and it’s the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce.

Click here to learn more or to sign up for E-Verify. http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm

KPA offers a free webinar on What Employers Must know about Immigration Control and Enforcement. Check it out at

http://www.kpaonline.com/news-and-events/webinars/recorded-webinars.html

Is this tip helpful for your business? Please share your thoughts and experiences about using E-Verify with the KPA blog community.

Tags: compliance tip of the month, Department of Labor, Enforcement, HR best practice, HR compliance, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Posted in HR: Industry Updates, Tip of the Month | Leave a Comment »

OSHA 300 Logs- It is that time again for many employers

Thursday, January 20th, 2011

For those employers required to report on injuries and illnesses by OSHA it is time to complete your OSHA 300 log. The Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (Form 300) is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to classify work-related injuries and illnesses and to record the extent and severity of each case. Employers who are required to complete the OSHA 300 Log must post the log in their workplace from February 1 until April 30 of each year. While (551) New and Used Car Dealers, (552) Used Car Dealers and (557) Motorcycle Dealers have been classified as exempt and do not need to post a log some KPA clients will be required to post the log. If you are a KPA client and are not sure if you are required to post the OSHA 300 log please contact your KPA engineer for assistance.

As a general rule, employers with 10 or fewer employees are not required to keep and post the OSHA 300 log. Other employers may be exempt depending on the industry. You can search for SIC Codes by keywords or by four-digit SIC to retrieve descriptive information of specific SICs in OSHA’s online North American Industry Classification System Search, available on OSHA’s website at: http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/naics-manual.html.e

OSHA 300 Log and the OSHA 300A Summary must be kept for 5 years following the year that the log and summary pertain to. Employers are not required to send the completed forms to OSHA unless specifically asked to do so. Employers must post the summary only from February 1 of the year following the year covered by the form and keep it posted until April 30 of that year. Detailed recordkeeping criteria are listed in 29 CFR 1904.29.

For more information on OSHA recordkeeping requirements check out KPA’s free recorded webinar, OSHA 300 Logs-How To Do Them Right.

Tags: HR compliance, occupational safety and health, occupational safety and health administration osha, OSHA, workplace injuries
Posted in DOL, OSHA, Safety: Industry Updates | Leave a Comment »

Prevent Employee Fraud With Pro-active Approach

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

What you don’t know about employee fraud is hurting your business. Consider the Honda dealership in Ohio that lost between $500,000 and $1 million over the course of four years due to theft by a long term employee or the two dealerships in Lousiana that both hired the same controller- she stole over $100,00 from each of them. While trust is a crucial element in the employment relationship it would be wise to put in place other measures to ensure that employees are not defrauding the company. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) reports in the 2010 Global Fraud Study that the median loss caused by occupational fraud was $160,000, with nearly one-quarter of the frauds involving losses of at least $1 million. The criminal activities lasted an average of 18 months before even being detected. The study also found that businesses with fewer than 100 employees suffered the greatest percentage of employee theft of all the companies studied. Smaller employers are excellent targets for employee fraud because they tend to place a greater value on “personal relationships” and have less anti-theft controls in places.

Employees commit fraud because they can, because they can justify the fraud or theft and when they have the means to commit the fraud. Strong internal controls and good accounting practices along with a positive workplace culture will go a long way to reducing fraud.

Simple steps that HR can implement to reduce or eliminate employee fraud include:

Establish and enforce policies on employee ethics, fraud prevention (internal controls) and compliance with state and federal laws regarding Red Flags, Customer Information Security and 8300 Cash Handling
Perform background checks including reference checks and county criminal history checks before you hire and again when you offer a promotion or change of duties
Provide training on fraud prevention to all managers and employees
Establish a “hotline” or other method for employees to report fraud
Create a positive workplace culture-treat employees fairly in regards to promotion and discipline
Prosecute when you discover employee fraud – don’t just terminate the employee and allow the problem to continue at the next employer

Consider hiring a forensic accounting firm and have them perform the following activities at least on an annual basis:

Preparing bank account reconciliation on a surprise basis
Reviewing cancelled checks
Performing physical inventories
Analyzing parts inventory activity

Additional information and excellent resources on workplace fraud prevention can be found at www.acfe.com.

Tags: employee ethics, employee fraud, employee theft, HR best practice, HR compliance, occupational fraud
Posted in Employee Relations, HR: Industry Updates | 2 Comments »

Healthcare cost reporting not required on W-2 forms for 2011

Monday, October 18th, 2010

On October 12, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2010-69, which provides that the W-2 reporting of the cost of employees’ health coverage will be voluntary, rather than mandatory, for 2011. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originally would have required employers to report the total cost of health coverage on employees’ W-2 forms for 2011.

The IRS expects to issue additional guidance on the reporting requirements before the end of this year, however it recognizes that employers may need additional time to modify their payroll systems to comply with the new reporting requirement. Based on Notice 2010-69 employers will not face a penalty if they do not report the cost of employer-provided health coverage on employees’ W-2s for 2011.

Tags: healthcare reform, HR compliance, internal revenue service, IRS, IRS Notice 2010-69, W-2
Posted in HR: Industry Updates | 2 Comments »

Supreme Court now hearing cases that will impact employer and employee relations and employment litigation

Wednesday, October 13th, 2010

The Supreme Court kicked off its 2010-2011 term last week and has already heard one important employment case and is planning on hearing a number of cases that could have major impact on employer and employee relationships and employment litigation. First up was NASA v. Nelson (no “I dream of Jeannie jokes” please), which considers if the National Aeronautics and Space Administration violated the constitutional right to privacy when it conducted background investigations of federal contractors. Of special issue was a question about the use of illegal drugs. Although the case is specific to federal contractors, private employers could be held to a similar standard based on the court’s decision. There is also a pair of retaliation cases before the court. In Thompson v. North American Stainless LP the court reviews how broadly the definition of retaliation is and in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. the court will review a 7th Circuit Court ruling that the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act does not extend to an employee who complained orally to his employer about the company’s timekeeping practices. Both cases has the ability to impact pending retaliation cases in the lower courts and increase the number of retaliation claims filed. Other cases to watch are:

Staub v. Proctor Hospital considers the question of whether an employer can be held liable for the discriminatory acts of supervisors who do not make final employment decision but influences the decision maker.

CIGNA v. Amara determines whether plaintiffs are required to show “likely harm” rather than demonstrable injury. In addition, the court will review if a participant in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act-governed plan (ERISA) must make to recover benefits based on an inconsistency between the summary plan description and the plan itself. Employers might want to start double checking plan documents now.

The state of Arizona’s ongoing battle against illegal immigration takes a new twist with the Supreme Court agreeing to review a lower court decision that upheld an Arizona state law providing for the revocation of the business licenses of employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The law also requires Arizona employers to use E-Verify (Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. of Am. v. Candelaria). Given the number of states that already require the use of E-Verify in certain circumstances it may be time to add E-Verify to your hiring process.

The court has also announced that it will decide whether the Treasury Department can exclude all medical residents from an exemption from Social Security taxes (FICA) provided to university students (Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States of America).

Advocates and detractors of arbitration are very interested in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, where the court will examine whether the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts California law.

Look for updates as the cases are heard and judgement rendered in the KPA newsletter and on this blog.

Tags: background investigations, E-Verify, employment case, employment decision, employment litigation, HR compliance
Posted in DOL, Employee Relations, HR: Industry Updates | Leave a Comment »

Live Long and Prosper- Corporate Wellness Programs

Thursday, September 30th, 2010

Is it possible to have healthy employees and a healthily bottom line? With ever increasing healthcare insurance costs, reported obesity rate of 1 in 3 adults, and a rapidly aging workforce it would certainly seem that improving the health of employees would be good for the employees and good for the company. In fact the Healthy People 2010 program managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set a goal of:

75% of all employers, regardless of size, providing wide reaching corporate wellness programs
75% of all a company’s staff participating in employer-sponsored corporate wellness programs.

When implementing a corporate program you do need to be careful in how the program is designed and employee participation handled. Otherwise it can become yet another area for claims of employment discrimination and the violation of employee privacy. Corporate wellness programs can easily run afoul of the law despite of the best of intentions because multiple federal laws come into play. The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report on where these programs and federal law intersect. The report discusses the challenges employees face in implementation a program while not discriminating against employees and complying with HIPAA requirements. The report is available at http://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/uploads/file/CRS%20Wellness%20Report(1).pdf

Two resources on best practices for corporate wellness programs are Infinite Wellness Solution’s Wellness Solutions Guide and the HRM Report on Corporate Wellness.

Join the conversation: do you have a corporate wellness program or plan to implement one in 2011?

Tags: Department of Labor, employee morale, hipaa requirements, HR best practice, HR compliance, wellness solutions
Posted in HR: Industry Updates | Leave a Comment »