TALX Blog - Unemployment Cost Mgmt

Refusal of Suitable Work

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:36:33 GMT

A friend of mine who owns a small business recently informed me that things were picking back up and he was in the process of calling back some of the employees he unfortunately had to let go due to downsizing his staff. He said he could not necessarily put employees back in the same job they had before, but he did have positions available and felt he should offer these positions to his former employees first. He mentioned that he was somewhat concerned and somewhat frustrated in some cases because some of the former employees were refusing his job offers.

He asked me how the state unemployment agencies would view someone currently receiving unemployment benefits and declining offers of work. Would they still be eligible to receive benefits under state law? I advised my friend that state laws really vary regarding what offers are considered suitable work and what would be considered good cause for refusing them. Under Federal Law, a state agency cannot deny an employee benefits based on refusal of work if: (A) the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute; (B) if the wages, hours, or other work conditions offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the local area; (C) if, as a condition of being employed the individual would be required to join a company union, or resign or refrain from joining a bona fide labor organization.

Some state laws require agencies to consider other criteria including: the claimant’s prior training, experience and earnings; the degree of risk to their health, safety, and morals; the distance of the job from their residence; and even their length of unemployment.

I suggested to my friend that his obligation as the employer would be to provide the local unemployment office with any information regarding the offered work such as return to work date, job title, job duties, the hours of work, wages, location, and any detailed explanation given to him as a reason for refusal. In doing so, the state agency would have sufficient information to make a determination regarding whether or not the employee’s refusal was for good cause in accordance with state law, and its impact on their eligibility.

Dave Meinert

Director, Product Management, UC Services

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

New Boston Law Requires Employers to Make Employees Aware of Every Negative Comment in their Personnel File

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:01:40 GMT

Ran across this article this morning that employers in Boston should be aware of; “Law mandates employee notification”. The law requires employers to make employees aware of every negative comment in their personnel file. While it isn’t yet clear how negative comment is to be interpreted, employers should be aware that the law exists and pay attention to any new information that comes out about it.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

What Does Employee Engagement Have to Do with Unemployment Costs?

Tammy Mullin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:26:00 GMT

Employee Engagement is all the buzz these days. We see numerous articles written about it and many companies touting how to improve it. As this press release from the Association of Psychological Science (APS) “Happy Employees May Be the Key to Success…for Organizations” points out there is definitely a proven connection between employee engagement, employee retention and organizational success.

So what does that have to do with your unemployment costs? Well, as we pointed out in our blog “The Hidden Costs of Employee Turnover: Increased Unemployment Taxes”, employee retention can impact merit-rated employers in two ways. First, lower retention rates can lead to more separations and more claims filed. Second, low retention leads to higher taxes paid in the year on payroll dollars since unemployment taxes are calculated on a base wage per employee. When you have to replace a position, that wage base starts over and you could end up paying double taxes for the same job if it turns over.

So how do you improve employee engagement? What I really liked about this press release from APS is the connection made on the importance in making employees feel connected. It suggests to “clarify expectations for employees by helping employees see the ultimate outcomes the organization is working to achieve and how they play a role in achieving those outcomes.” That’s a simple but powerful message and the best part is, it doesn’t have to cost a lot of money.

So, what are you going to do today to help your employees feel more connected?

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

What Impact Does the Age of a State’s System Have on Unemployment Benefit Integrity?

Admin — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:50:59 GMT

Recently, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) released “A National View of UI IT Systems” which talks about all the problems associated with the age of a state’s Unemployment Insurance system.

One of the benefits cited for updating old UI systems was that states with new systems “generally report faster and more accurate benefit payments.” Intuitively you might think that states with older unemployment insurance benefit systems would have more trouble with maintaining control over their benefit integrity and have higher overpayment rates. However, as this chart shows, that isn’t necessarily the case.

The chart below compares the age of state UI Benefits Systems as reported in the NASWA Report to 2008 benefit overpayments as reporting in the Department of Labor Benefit Accuracy Measurement report for 2008 (2009 report has not yet been released).

Surprisingly, there doesn’t appear to be any strong correlation between the age of the system and the benefit overpayment rate. I do think there are many other reasons why it makes sense to invest in modernization of state systems as outlined in the NASWA Report, unfortunately we wouldn’t expect to see any major reductions in benefit overpayments as a result.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Staffing Industry Unemployment Management Best Practices

Tammy Mullin — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:30:41 GMT

Unemployment taxes can be a major expense for the staffing industry, not only because of the various challenges such as branch turnover or a dispersed population but also because unemployment rates are based on the collective experience of all branches within a state. As a result, one ineffective branch can negatively impact all branches in that state. But within any organization, costs related to unemployment can still be controlled.

In 2009, TALX conducted a comprehensive survey seeking feedback from our client partners within the staffing industry. Highlighted below are 5 best practices used in the staffing industry that can help you manage costs associated with unemployment compensation.

Best Practice #1: Choosing the right candidate- Onboarding

Effective onboarding adds qualified applicants to your candidate pool to be placed with clients. In this stage it’s important to conduct and use tools such as formal assessments, job interviews, background checks, and also implement procedures to review your organization’s policies. As it relates to controlling unemployment taxes, the onboarding stage should serve several purposes:

ü To get qualified job candidates

ü Explain policies and procedures to obtain signatures of acknowledgement from the candidate

ü Verify the candidate’s job requirements and help set reasonable requirements for pay, hours, etc.

Best Practice #2: Management and Practices of Policy/Procedures

Your employee handbook should provide essential information regarding workplace rules and operations. Below are important policies and procedures that all employees should receive and acknowledge with a signature. Acknowledgements should be retained as documentation of their acceptance and understanding.

ü Call-in Policy: Identifies the appropriate channels for reporting absence or being tardy.

ü Contact Policy: Your company’s procedures to line up new work when an assignment is coming to a close or after it has ended.

ü Voluntary Quit Procedures: Company expectations regarding notification of a voluntary resignation.

Best Practice #3: Job Requirements and Candidate Placement

Placing candidates with client job assignments that are a good “fit” are important because when the client’s and candidate’s expectations and requirements are met, you have offered a valid job. You should always:

ü Explain relevant job requirements and help the candidate to have realistic expectations (hours, pay, work conditions, etc.)

ü Have the candidate sign off on the agreed upon job requirements

The validity of an assignment is pivotal in a state agency’s decision to award or deny unemployment benefits after a candidate’s refusal of a suitable job offer.

Best Practice #4: Assignment Management & Monitoring

Whether it is software driven or a manual process, it is beneficial to have a system to select and place qualified candidates, track when an assignment is ending for future and continuing placement, and to monitor the workplace relationship between the temporary employee and the client.

In addition, it is also helpful to prioritize the assignment of candidates first to their qualifications, then to whether they are collecting unemployment benefits, and finally go to those candidates whose earnings meet or exceed the taxable wage base in your state.

Best Practice #5: Documenting for Separations, Job Refusals and Availability Issues

In order to provide the best response to a claim received from the state, you must have effective documentation. If you fail to provide the details and documents (signed acknowledgement of policies, written warnings, etc.), you are not effectively providing the state with proper information to make an informed decision. It is also important to provide the state with specific documentation related to refusals of suitable work offers and restrictions on a person’s availability for work.

The survey results are clear. High performing staffing organizations use effective candidate and employee management programs, as well as implement key processes and procedures from the hiring phase to the separation phase.

Aimee Cernik

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

HR 4213 Fixes UI Benefit Consequences for Part-Time or Temporary Workers

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:41:27 GMT

Lori Roberts, Senior Manager of the TALX Government Relations group explains the “fix” in HR 4213 related to part-time or temporary work.

The federal UI extension legislation signed by President Obama on July 22, 2010 (HR 4213), contains a provision to "fix" an unintended consequence regarding regular UI benefits and federal EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) in instances where claimants had part-time or temporary employment. Under the newly enacted legislation, states have four options to continue payment of EUC instead of regular UI in certain instances. Please note, the state agency chooses the option; claimants do not choose the option.

The unintended consequence can occur when an EUC claimant can establish a second benefit year and is eligible for regular UI due to part-time or temporary work. Under the second benefit year claim, many claimants were qualifying for a lower weekly unemployment benefit amount than they received for EUC or their original regular UI claim, because the part-time/temporary earnings were lower than their earnings used to establish the original claim.

In order to "fix" this unintended consequence, Section 502 of HR 4213 provides for the following options for continued payment of EUC instead of regular UI

If—

‘‘(A) an individual has been determined to be entitled to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to a benefit year,‘‘(B) that benefit year has expired,‘‘(C) that individual has remaining entitlement to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to that benefit year, and‘‘(D) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year in which the weekly benefit amount of regular compensation is at least either $100 or 25 percent less than the individual’s weekly benefit amount in the benefit year referred to in subparagraph (A), then the State shall determine eligibility for compensation as provided in paragraph (2).

“(A)The State shall, if permitted by State law, establish a new benefit year, but defer the payment of regular compensation with respect to that new benefit year until exhaustion of all emergency unemployment compensation payable with respect to the benefit year referred to in paragraph (1)(A); ‘‘(B) The State shall, if permitted by State law, defer the establishment of a new benefit year (which uses all the wages and employment which would have been used to establish a benefit year but for the application of this paragraph), until exhaustion of all emergency unemployment compensation payable with respect to the benefit year referred to in paragraph(1)(A); ‘‘(C) The State shall pay, if permitted by State law— ‘‘(i) regular compensation equal to the weekly benefit amount established under the new benefit year, and‘‘(ii) emergency unemployment compensation equal to the difference between that weekly benefit amount and the weekly benefit amount for the expired benefit year; or ‘‘(D) The State shall determine rights to emergency unemployment compensation without regard to any rights to regular compensation if the individual elects to not file a claim for regular compensation under the new benefit year.’’.

Three key points to keep in mind about the "fix" and the options: 1) A "fix" is only applicable to claimants whose regular weekly UI benefit amount in the new benefit year would be at least either $100 or 25% less than their original weekly UI amount; 2) the legislative provisions are not retroactive and only apply to claimants whose benefit years expire after the date the legislation was enacted (July 22, 2010); and 3) only state UI agencies may choose one of the four available options, not claimants; a state must only choose one option and apply it to all applicable claimants.

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Unemployment Insurance Benefit Integrity

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:15:20 GMT

In case you missed it, here is some information on Unemployment Insurance Benefit Integrity that you should be aware of.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

South Dakota Reduces Surcharge for Third Quarter

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:32:36 GMT

The following information was released to TALX clients in South Dakota last week.

Situation

The state of South Dakota’s trust fund is no longer insolvent. Their $24 million Title XII Federal loan has been repaid. In addition, the balance in the trust fund as of June 30, 2010 was $15.9 million triggering a reduction in the surcharge that has been in place since the fourth quarter, 2009. The surcharge is decreased from 1.0% to 0.1% effective with the third quarter, 2010.

The trust fund has been increasing as a result of the passage of SB186 and HB1018 during the 2010 legislative session. SB186 reduced the surcharge amount for 2010 and 2011, increased the taxable wage base and created a new tax rate table with higher rates for employers with negative account balances. HB1018 brought $11.7 million in federal funds to the trust fund while expanding benefits for workers in state-approved training for high-demand occupations.

What Employers Need to Know

This increase in the trust fund balance means employers’ tax rates for the third quarter, 2010 are decreased by 0.9%. The balance in the trust fund is projected to increase above $16.5 million as of September 30, 2010 eliminating the surcharge all together and reducing employers’ tax rates another 0.1% for the fourth quarter, 2010. This fourth quarter change will not be official until sometime in early October. Another notification will be issued at that time.

The lower surcharge rate will appear on your paper quarterly unemployment report or when you file on the internet.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

An Unemployment Twist on Identity Theft

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:19:23 GMT

Identity theft is a major problem in the U.S., worldwide actually. Who hasn’t received one of those emails saying “I’ve decided to leave my fortune to you”? I get at least a couple a day. It’s a shame that there are people out there who prey on the unsuspecting that way. Recently, we have been seeing more of a new twist on identity theft, stealing a person’s identity to collect unemployment benefits. Four people in New York recently stole the identities of more than 100 former workers in order to file for and collect unemployment which resulted in close to $95,000 in false payments.

Scamming the unemployment system isn’t new, but it has become more lucrative. Since most states have triggered extended benefits and with the federal unemployment extensions, someone making a fraudulent claims could theoretically collect as much as $30,000 per identity stolen which seems to make it more worth the risk to some. We are definitely seeing and hearing more about identity theft issues these days.

This rise in identity theft fraud is putting further strain on an unemployment system where more than half of the state funds today are insolvent. They are borrowing from the federal government in order to pay out benefits which come at a high cost to employers who start to lose FUTA credits if loans aren’t paid back in time and also could see interest costs start to accrue. All of this ends up coming out of the employer’s pockets and frankly out of the claimant’s pockets as well. Given the poor state of unemployment trust fund affairs these days, legislators are forced to not only increase employer taxes to bring in new revenue, but start to decrease benefits by reducing payments or making them harder to qualify for.

What can employers do to help? Fraud is hard to catch, particularly when 2 or more individuals are colluding, but employers can very carefully check their charge statements and if anything does look out of the ordinary, contact their state’s unemployment office to report it. It won’t stop identity theft fraud in the unemployment system, but in these tough times, every little bit helps, right?!!

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Managing the Unemployment Insurance Consequences of Staff Reductions

Tammy Mullin — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:33:49 GMT

Find out how in this article from the Journal of State Taxation. While this is a tax publication, many of the recommendations are relevant for reimbursing employers and is definitely worth a read.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Emergency UI Extended for Six Months

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:18:35 GMT

The following information was released to TALX clients this past week -

Situation

On July 22, 2010, President Obama signed legislation to extend Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) for an additional 6-month period. This extension is retroactive to the beginning of June, when the program last expired.

What Employers Need to Know

The bill does not add any new weeks of benefits; it simply extends the time period in which claims for EUC may be established. The deadline to apply for EUC benefits is now November 30, 2010, with no EUC payments after April 30, 2011. The program continues to provide up to 53 weeks of 100% federally funded (meaning no employer bears the cost of these payments) benefits through four separate EUC tiers.

A review of the EUC tiers is as follows:

EUC Program	Available Weeks	Trigger
Tier I	Up to 20 weeks	All States
Tier II	Up to 14 weeks	All States
Tier III	Up to 13 weeks	*States with TUR > 6% or IUR > 4%
Tier IV	Up to 6 weeks	*States with TUR >8.5% or IUR > 6%

*TUR = Total Unemployment Rate; IUR = Insured Unemployment Rate

Persons must exhaust 26 weeks of regular unemployment insurance (UI) benefits in order to be eligible for any EUC payments.

The recently signed legislation also extends the 100% federal funding of state extended benefits (EB) to December 1, 2010. Most employers (excluding government entities and Indian tribes) will not be liable for any EB paid, because of this federal funding. Individuals who exhaust regular UI and EUC may be eligible for up to 20 weeks of state EB.

The additional $25 currently being added to claimants’ weekly benefits – known as Federal Additional Compensation (FAC) - was not included in the extension legislation, so it will end December 7, 2010.

What You Can Expect

State UI agencies will continue to notify claimants of any EUC or EB eligibility. They are working diligently to process EUC payments as quickly as possible. However, certain factors, such as the extension being nearly two months retroactive, add new administrative challenges, so the agencies appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding.

Updated information regarding the impact of the new extension legislation is being posted to state UI websites. To link to any state’s UI site, input the following address into your Web browser and select a state: http://www.servicelocator.org/OWSLinks.asp

Keep in mind that many individuals have exhausted all available UI, EUC and EB benefits. More will continue to exhaust in the coming weeks and months. Sometimes referred to as the “unemployment 99ers,” there are currently no new or additional benefits available to these exhaustees.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Reimbursing vs. Taxpaying? Financing your Unemployment Benefit Costs

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:46:16 GMT

Be sure to check out “Reimbursing vs. Taxpaying? Financing your Unemployment Benefit Costs” to learn more about unemployment benefit payment options available for non-profit organizations.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

The Hidden Cost of Employee Turnover: Increased Unemployment Taxes for Merit-Rated Employers

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:42:28 GMT

Another great tip from the TALX Client Service Team.

Quantifying Employee Turnover

There are many widely published studies available that attempt to quantify the costs to employers of turnover. Most use the formula turnover costs = costs of hiring new employees + cost of training new employees. What is commonly missed in the equation is that higher turnover means higher unemployment taxes. It is the “hidden” cost of employee turnover.

How Unemployment Taxes are Calculated

When the unemployment compensation laws were originally enacted in the 1930s, the intent was to provide a supplement to individuals who were unemployed through no fault of their own. Individual states have been free to enact and administer their own unemployment compensation regulations, provided they comply with established federal rules and guidelines.

Employers bear the cost of unemployment compensation through a payroll tax paid to the states in which they pay wages. The taxes go into a state fund specifically earmarked for the payment of unemployment benefits. Like other business taxes, unemployment compensation taxes are additional overhead to the employer. However, there is a major difference between unemployment and other business taxes. Most business tax rates are fixed by law. Unemployment tax rates fluctuate based on the employer’s payroll and the amount of unemployment benefits charged against its account.

An employer’s unemployment tax rate determines how much UI taxes are paid per employee. Contrary to what many believe, unemployment taxes are paid on EVERY employee, not only the ones who file for benefits. An employer’s state unemployment tax rate is determined by a combination of state factors (health of the state trust fund balance) and individual employer factors (payroll and benefit charges attributed to the employer). An employer’s assigned tax rate is applied to each employee’s earnings until the state taxable “wage base” (amount subject to the tax) is reached. State unemployment tax rates range from 0% to 12.27%. State taxable “wage bases” range from $7,000 to $36,800. For example, an employer’s assigned unemployment tax rate is 2.10% and the state wage base is $12,000. The employer’s annual unemployment tax cost for employees earning $12,000 and above is $252 per employee.

How Does Turnover Increase Taxes?

Turnover impacts unemployment taxes in two ways. First, the separations may result in claim filings that can result in an increase in benefit charges which in turn impacts experience rating. Second, the taxable wage is “re-started” so that the employer does not realize the benefit of the cap on employee earnings for the collection of unemployment taxes.

Turnover’s Impact on Unemployment Taxes: Re-Starting the Wage Base

Employer A and Employer B hire a customer service representative January 1, 2010, to begin work in their Los Angeles, California, offices. California’s taxable wage base is $7,000. Both employers have a 2010 tax rate of 2.30%. Employer A uses hiring and retention best practices and retains the new hire the entire year. Employer A’s annual unemployment costs (taxes) for this position are $161. Employer B has a high rate of turnover and has to re-hire for the same position three times during 2010. Each employee earned over $7,000 prior to leaving the business. Employer B’s annual unemployment costs (taxes) for the customer service position are $483. The cost of the turnover to Employer B is $322 for just the one position.

Conclusion

Unemployment taxes are one of the few taxes employers can directly control. One way employers can effectively minimize unemployment costs is to utilize best practices in hiring and retention.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Unemployment gives some the incentive they need to strike out on their own!!!

Tammy Mullin — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:27:59 GMT

I don’t think anyone can help feeling disheartened by the tragic stories that are constantly circulating about how current economic conditions and unemployment have impacted families throughout the US. Stories ranging from families not being able to keep their homes, or pay their rent, or feed their children foster a general sense of hopelessness by the media and population at large. The Unemployment Insurance Systems help those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, but even with benefits, families struggle.

Recently though I’ve seen an increasing number of stories about how individuals are turning adversity around and striking out on their own to try to capture a part of that increasingly elusive American dream.

New business growth in Long Island, NY is up 25% over last year and a man who was laid off after 15 years turns an idea into a lucrative new business for himself and his family in Springfield, OH. Other stories include:

· A mom of 5 who uses her kid’s antics to author a children’s book,

· A man in Danville, VA who says that losing his job helped him realize his dream,

· A blogger in New York City who insists the while he and some of his friends aren’t working at actual jobs, they are not unemployed, they are entrepreneurs, and

· A former reporter in Portland, OR who took out a $9,000 loan to buy factory-second mattress and after selling out he rented space and opened up The Mattress Lot, which turned a profit after only 6 months. (By the way, they deliver by bicycle – check it out!!)

Stories like these make me think we just might get through this mess yet!!

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Unemployment Best Practices: Discharge for Violation of Company Policy

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:51:26 GMT

The experienced and expert team from TALX speaks out to help employers manage their unemployment costs. Here's what Roberta Wright, one of our dedicated Unemployment Insurance Consultants has to say:

One of the things we see every day in the unemployment world is: Discharged for violation of company policy. Along with this we receive some warnings/write ups and maybe the pages of the policy. I have noticed that employers have a lot of detail in the final written warning, but very little detail regarding the incident that caused termination. The final incident is not fully documented. A termination form is filled out with violation of company policy and maybe a couple of sentences, but that is about all. The incident/situation that caused termination is the information that the state considers when making their decision to allow or deny benefits.

So, if I could recommend one thing to help you be more successful in providing an adequate response for your unemployment claims, that would be to write up an incident report on the reason for discharge. On this report you will want to include the date you terminated the employee . Provide the date the incident occurred. If an investigation was done, the start and end date of the investigation. Then write up exactly what happened, be very detailed in what the claimant's actions were, what you believe were the causing factors for his/her actions and document the names of the possible witnesses for an unemployment hearing. Who discovered the situation? Who witnessed the actions? Who did the investigation? Who actually advised the claimant of the discharge?

Writing this document at the time of the discharge gives any HR/Manager the details that will be needed if that former employee files for unemployment benefits. This is especially important in the retail world where your HR/management staff experiences more turn over. There can be a large gap in time between the discharge and an unemployment hearing. If you have a document with the names of the potential witnesses, the specific details of what happened, the new manager can gather the necessary individuals, if they are still with the company, faster and the document with the details will refresh the memory of the witnesses. I cannot stress strongly enough how important writing this out when it happens is so you can provide an adequate response to the state. This will help the state by giving them all the information they need to decide the case.

Roberta Wright

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Educating Educators on the Reasonableness Requirement of Reasonable Assurance

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:50:04 GMT

The experienced and expert team from TALX speaks out to help employers manage their unemployment costs. Here's what Jonathan Beretta, one of our fantastic Appellate Managers has to say:

Reasonable Assurance always seems to have a stigma of being obfuscated and difficult to understand. First of all, reasonable assurance only applies to School Districts which are classified as reimbursement Employers with the State. Reasonable Assurance arises during break periods between academic terms. Reasonable assurance occurs when the Employer and the Employee agree that following the academic break the Employer will re-hire the Employee. Where Employers run into trouble is in determining when to notify their employees that they do in fact have reasonable assurance to return to work following an academic break. The exact format and/or venue that the Employer can utilize to accomplish this can differ by state, but the substance of what the Employer needs to tell their employees and the basic mutual understanding of the assurance requirement is the same across the U.S. The essence of reasonable assurance is that the Employer is educating its staff that following the current academic break, their jobs will be available. Where the understanding of reasonable assurance gets obfuscated is in the area of what is “reasonable” assurance; and when does the Employer believe that it can provide its employees with reasonable assurance.

There is a famous quote, “whatever is reasonable is true; and whatever is true is reasonable.” The best way to understand the reasonable aspect is to look at the requirement as two facets: that of the Employer’s responsibilities as the Employer; and that of the Employee’s responsibilities as an employee. To explain in more detail, I will use the fictional school of TALX Elementary, located within the TALX County School District. When reasonable assurance is provided, TALX Elementary is indicating that as long as everything remains the same TALX will re-employ its staff at the end of the current school break. TALX Elementary is indicating in this communication that provided everything stays the same: budgets, funding, state and local laws, student base, accreditation, etc. that TALX Elementary will be able to re-hire the employees following the break. Many districts get concerned about providing reasonable assurance if they don’t in fact know exactly what will happen in the future with one or several of these categories during the break. The act of notifying the employees does not indicate that the Employer knows what the outcome of these issues will be, but that they reasonably believe they will remain unchanged to the extent that the employees will be re-hired after the break. Reasonable assurance is not telling the employee that the Employer knows they will be able to rehire the employee at the beginning of the next academic year, but only that they believe if everything remains the same they will be able to rehire the employee.

The second part of this reasonableness lies squarely at the feet of the employee. Because employment is a two way street, TALX Elementary School’s staff also has to meet certain requirements. For example, if the employee is a teacher they are reciprocating the reasonable assurance by assuring to TALX Elementary that they will reasonably continue to maintain their certification as a teacher in good standing. So if the teacher does not renew their certification (which may be expiring) then the Employer does not have to honor its assurances with the teacher after the academic break has ended. Thus, if the employee does not keep up their side of the assurances, then TALX Elementary does not have to rehire the employee following the completion of the academic break. Therefore, the essence of reasonable assurance is a mutual understanding between the Employer and the Employee that if I do what I am supposed to do and you do what you are supposed to do then we can re-engage our employment relationship after the academic break.

Often the question that arises out of an explanation of reasonableness is why is it so important to provide employees with Reasonable Assurance at the beginning of an academic break period. To understand why reasonable assurance exists, one needs to understand the three fundamental requirements a person must meet to be awarded unemployment benefits. Those are:

1. Be unemployed

2. Be able and available to work while unemployed, and

3. Have made sufficient wages within the benefit year

In looking at these requirements you may think, well a teacher which is not working during a summer break meets these requirements; and most of the time they meet the first two requirements. The essence of reasonable assurance is that it creates an exception to the third requirement of sufficient wages. If an employee is found to have reasonable assurance, then the states find that the educational wages they received from the school district during the last academic year cannot be used in the determination of sufficient wages. So the state does not use those wages and usually finds that the Claimant then did not make enough to qualify to receive benefits from the school district. Thus, the claimant is found to have reasonable assurance, and therefore, with no wages the employee is ineligible to receive benefits during the academic break.

The essence of the reasonableness requirement is to remember that you can provide reasonable assurance to the employees as soon as the district reasonably believes that they can rehire the employees following the break.

Jonathan Beretta

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Strength in Numbers – "Preponderance of the Evidence" and Burdens of Proof

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:59:45 GMT

The experienced and expert team from TALX speaks out to help employers manage their unemployment costs. Here's what Steve Solovic, one of our incredible Hearing Representatives has to say:

The evidentiary threshold which must be satisfied at an unemployment hearing is called "preponderance of the evidence" – basically, this means that the evidence shows that one version of events is the most logical, likely version that occurred. The party that must satisfy this threshold is the party that holds the "burden of proof". In a discharge case, the employer has the burden of proof to show that the claimant was discharged for employment misconduct. In a voluntary quit case, the claimant has the burden of proof to show that the quit was for good cause attributable to the employer or that the quit falls within some exception to good cause under the law.

In a discharge case, it is important for the employer to present multiple witnesses if these witnesses have relevant testimony. Claimants may deny receiving warnings that were never signed for, deny certain things that were said during conversations, deny the conversation ever took place at all, and of course deny the conduct that led to the termination. If the employer only provides one witness to the above type of events, and the credibility of both the employer and the claimant is not damaged at the hearing, the administrative law judge may rule that the employer didn’t satisfy its burden of proof because both versions of events are equally plausible. This type of situation is when it is necessary to be able to provide multiple witnesses that were present for the conduct, conversations, and prior disciplinary actions that ultimately led to the discharge. This type of testimony may seem repetitive but corroborating the employer’s version of events with a second witness will give the employer’s case that extra push that is needed to satisfy the evidentiary standard.

Likewise, in a quit case, the employer should present multiple witnesses when available in order to play stronger defense. It’s important, though, not to "pile on". Bringing 4 or 5 witnesses that all will say the same thing will unnecessarily drag out the procedures and quite possibly irritate the judge. Keep testimony truthful, simple, credible, and consistent.

Steve Solovic

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Unemployment Insurance Benefit Payment Integrity

Tammy Mullin — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:14:19 GMT

On November 20, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13520. The purpose of this order is to reduce improper payments by intensifying efforts to eliminate payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse in the major programs administered by the Federal Government, while continuing to ensure that Federal programs serve and provide access to their intended beneficiaries. The order adopts a comprehensive set of policies, including transparency and public scrutiny of significant payment errors throughout the Federal Government.

States Emphasize Reducing Overpayment and Fraud: The Impact on Employers

All state unemployment agencies require complete details be provided at the initial level of the unemployment claim. States no longer tolerate insufficient details with the initial claim response, in part because of the focus on reducing unemployment overpayments to claimants and fraud. From the State’s perspective, the employer and claimant are the knowledgeable parties and should have the facts at hand; therefore, the state looks to the employer for professional and complete information on a separation. When an employer fails to provide complete supporting separation information the state must rely on the available information provided to them to make a determination of benefits.

Penalties for Employers Supplying Late or Insufficient Information

Some states are applying monetary penalties and/or penalties that could remove an employer’s rights to pursue the claim further. In addition, some states are penalizing the employer for insufficient or inaccurate responses at the claim level. This climate is ever-changing and due to demands made to increase efficiencies and reduce costs, several states are anticipated to follow suit by the end of the calendar year.

Penalties should not be the only incentive to provide separation information up front. It is good business practice to provide all the separation information, details and documents with the initial claim response for a number of reasons including:

1. Shortening or mitigating the appeals and hearings process, saving time and money for both the State and the employer.

2. Building good rapport with the state and being a good steward of best practices. Having proper documentation readily available is good business practice for employers and the documentation may be needed in other areas than unemployment like Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) matters.

States Require Detailed, Accurate Information to Make an Accurate Determination

Many states penalize the employer for insufficient responses. Sufficiency is defined as information that is timely, provides complete details, and includes supporting documentation. States will frequently indicate in their determination that the “protest of the claim was not timely” when they mean “sufficient” information was not received timely.

States will focus on the final incident that initiated the claimant’s separation and they need supporting documentation to understand the complete picture. Employers should supply copies of: written warnings, company policies, resignation letters, admission statements, and any other documents that support the reason for separation and substantiate “the burden of proof.” A reason for separation alone is not sufficient.

Information States Typically Require:

• Dates of employment

• Details and date of the final incident that caused the separation

• Description of the events that led to the final incident

• Documents that show:

§ Claimant knew his job was in jeopardy

§ Claimant received warnings and knew the consequences of further incidents

§ Proof the claimant’s actions were intentional (not beyond his/her control).

§ Resignation letter in the event of a voluntary termination

Three Penalties States Impose:

• Loss of appeal rights

• Loss of non-charge rights: In cases where the claimant is later ruled ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, employers lose their protection and can be charged for that unemployment claim.

• Monetary penalties: This could include charging the employer’s account for overpayments made or assessing a flat monetary amount.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

KY Changes Tax Rate Computation Date and Taxable Wage Base

Tammy Mullin — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:35:49 GMT

Situation

The state of Kentucky recently enacted HB5 which among other things changes the computation date for the calculation of unemployment tax rates from September 30^th to June 30^th. It also increases the taxable wage base from $8,000 to $9,000 starting in 2012 and will increase $300 every year through 2022.

What Employers Need to Know

The change in the computation date will allow the agency to issue tax rate notices earlier. Agency officials have told us they plan to issue the notices in December instead of February or March as in previous years.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Staffing Agencies and the Absenteeism Unemployment Claim

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:47:43 GMT

The experienced and expert team from TALX speaks out to help employers manage their unemployment costs. Here's what Julie Satory, one of our fantastic Unemployment Insurance Consultants has to say:

Temporary agencies can be at a disadvantage in contesting attendance issues because absences may not be reported directly or tracked by the agency. As a rule with temporary assignments, the employee reports to an offsite location and often only reports their absences to the offsite supervisor.

A little foresight can dramatically increase an agency's odds of winning an attendance protest that comes a few months after termination. At the time the client offsite reaches out to the agency and requests termination, the agency should obtain as much documented information as possible about the absences and keep the information accessible for when an unemployment claim follows.

Whenever a claimant has been terminated for absenteeism, the state does not view it as misconduct unless the employer is able to show that the absences rose to the level of misconduct. If a claimant has had just a few sporadic occurrences, it’s not likely that the state will disqualify the claimant for misconduct attendance.

At the time of termination, the agency should reach out to the client and obtain the following information:

Dates of absences for at least 3-6 months prior to termination. Please also track the reasons the claimant called out each time and document whether the absences were reported.
Documentation of when the claimant was warned about the attendance. Take note of verbal warnings and issue written warnings at counseling sessions.
Copy of attendance policy (For point system policies- the state will assess whether the policy was reasonable and that the claimant was made aware of the policy)
Documentation and specifics for the reason for final absence and whether it was reported correctly.

Documentation is crucial in contesting attendance issues. Simply stating they were ended for absenteeism will not result in disqualification as the burden of proof falls on the employer. The unfortunate reality of staffing agencies is that client offsite locations at times will not have tracked attendance occurrences. Try to advise your customers to keep track of the attendance. Also issue disciplinary warning when your clients advise there are attendance problems. The states want to see that the claimant was made aware the job was in jeopardy prior to termination.

Finally, absences are not considered misconduct if they are considered unpreventable or with good cause (i.e.: court dates, funeral). As a rule, the states place more importance and weight on the reason for the final absence and whether the claimant had good cause for this absence.

Julie Satory

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Staff Reduction Timing: Impact on Unemployment Costs

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:25:33 GMT

Did you know that the timing of a staff reduction has a tremendous impact on the unemployment cost of the reduction. In some cases, the additional benefits paid in the current year will force a company into the next higher tax bracket which, depending on the state and a company’s current tax rate, could end up costing more than what is being saved in payroll dollars as a result of the actual reduction.

Tax teams and Human Resource departments need to work closely together to determine how decisions made related to a staff reduction will impact unemployment costs. Tax rate projections should be prepared at each key decision point and with the final plan to show the overall expected impact. While having to implement a staff reduction is a difficult decision to make, there is much that can be done to minimize the impact to both employer and exiting employee, at least from an unemployment perspective.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Do you have a Rehire Strategy?

Tammy Mullin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:18:14 GMT

Establishing a rehire policy and mechanism for determining rehire eligibility can help reduce not only UI benefit charges, but also keep employers from paying additional unemployment taxes on payroll dollars. If an individual is rehired within the year a new wage base is not established. Taxes are generally calculated on a state defined dollar amount of wages for the year regardless of whether there is a break in service for that individual. Rehire programs also reduce other rehire costs such as recruiting and training.

Rehire programs can be extremely beneficial in industries such as retail, where turnover is high and staffing requirements fluctuate dramatically based on consumer demand.

So if you haven't considered your rehire policies as part your your unemployment cost management program, it might be time to start.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Kansas Employers Urged to Pay Second Quarter Taxes in Full and on Time

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:43:28 GMT

Situation

When HB 2676 was enacted earlier this year, it gave employers a 90 day grace period for making their unemployment tax payments without accruing interest for the first, second and third quarters of 2010 and 2011.

What Employers Need to Know

Employers should be cautioned that taking advantage of this grace period for the second quarter of 2010 payment could have a detrimental affect on their 2011 tax rate assignment. Any payments made after July 31, 2010 will NOT be included in the account balance used to calculate the 2011 tax rate. A lower account balance could result in a higher tax rate.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Impact of Severance Benefits on Unemployment Costs

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:55:20 GMT

So what impact does severance have on your unemployment costs as an employer? Well, state regulation determines whether the type and amount of severance provided will be qualifying or disqualifying when evaluating monetary eligibility for the UI claimant. But, generally speaking, the amount of severance paid is used to reduce the weekly benefit amount paid through the UI system based on a state defined calculation. Providing severance benefits could very well reduce overall costs for the employer without negatively impacting the ongoing income in severance and UI benefits a former employee receives to support them through their transition period.

Continuing payments are those that are paid out over a period of time and are thus allocated to specific weeks. Lump sum payments can also be allocated to certain weeks even though paid all at one time. If the employer makes a lump sum severance payment and does not allocate that severance payment to a specific week or weeks, then the severance payment will reduce the unemployment benefits only in the week in which the lump sum severance payment is made.

Again, the rules vary by state, so check with your unemployment cost management service or with your state agency for rules where you operate. Also, payments made along with allocation methods need to be reported to the state agency in order for them to be considered when determining monetary eligibility.

A good portion of benefit charge errors come from failure to properly allocate severance when determining monetary eligibility so be sure to also check those charge reports to ensure your company has been properly charged by the state agency.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Avoiding Unnecessary Unemployment Appeals & Hearings

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:17:07 GMT

Click here to learn more about how to avoid unnecessary Unemployment appeals & hearings.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Effective Written Warnings: What's Important from an Unemployment Perspective?

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:25:26 GMT

Another great TIP from our client service team -

Warnings are an aspect of progressive discipline that effectively ensures an employee understands what is expected of them. Warnings or corrective actions help an employee understand that a performance problem or opportunity for improvement exists and help the employee overcome those performance problems and satisfy job expectations.

State unemployment agencies look for warnings, in most instances, to determine if the claimant was discharged for misconduct—a deliberate or willful violation of company rules. Effective documentation is crucial, as many times the employer will have the burden of proof with the state agency. States consider it the employer’s responsibility to ensure that all employees are aware of company rules, policies, and procedures. Proper documentation can make a difference in the outcome of your case. Missing or incomplete documentation will lead to a failure to prove misconduct.

Preparing for the Warning

· Set aside time to review the problem

· Investigate the events surrounding the problem

· Interview any witnesses

· Review policies/procedures/work rules

· Define the expectation

· Define the alternative choices—are there any?

Good Documentation Procedures

· When an employer issues an employee handbook or rules, retain an acknowledgement of receipt in the employee’s file. When changes are made to policies, another signed acknowledgement of the update must be obtained.

· Special policies and procedures should, if possible, be posted.

· Be consistent: enforce rules and policies uniformly and ensure that disciplinary action being taken is in accordance with the company policy and/or prior disciplinary action.

· All counseling sessions and warnings should be documented in writing—even if only informal or verbal.

· All disciplinary action should be administered by authorized personnel in a timely manner.

· Retain documentation for at least 18 months and keep it readily available to ensure timely responses to the state.

Elements of a Good Written Warning

The Violation - Provide a detailed synopsis of the event which occurred including all facts, dates/times and witnesses. Clearly state what the observed behavior was and why it was unacceptable. Clearly outline exactly what policy was violated.

Expected Action or How to Improve - State or reaffirm what the expected behavior or standard is and what changes are expected.

The Consequences - Inform the worker what the consequences will be if the standard is not consistently adhered to. For example, state “further violations will result in more severe discipline, which may include discharge.” Include expected time period to rectify (e.g., 30 days to improve) and consequences and next steps should there be no improvement.

Employee’s Action Plan and Comments

Signature of Employee - Ensure the employee acknowledges having received the warning (signs and dates).

Signature of Witness - Whenever possible, involve a witness so two people will be able to testify with firsthand knowledge regarding the counseling session should an unemployment hearing arise.

Signature of Issuer

A good written warning is clear and legible and does not use opinion or judgment words. Focus is placed on words which indicate violation of rules. Avoid using general statements, e.g., “poor performance,” to describe willful or deliberate violations of rules within the employee’s control. Remember, you know what happened but the state does not.

What to Do If An Employee Won’t Sign the Warning

The employee’s signature is not an admission of guilt or an agreement with everything on the form. Its primary purpose is to show that the employee was aware of the possible consequences for a future incident. Here are some alternatives if the employee refuses to sign the form.

· Explain that the employee is admitting nothing only showing an understanding of possible consequences. Offer the employee a chance to tell their side of the story which they can sign and date.

· Put a line on the form and simply ask the employee to initial the form showing they received it.

· Have a witness present who can attest to the fact that the employee was given the form and had the consequences explained to them. Then have the witness sign the form and note “employee refused to sign.”

Tammy Mullin >

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

To Appeal or Not to Appeal - That is the Question!!

Tammy Mullin — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:13:16 GMT

Another great TIP from our fantastic service team:

Unemployment Eligibility Determinations: When Should You Appeal?

The Purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Process

Eligibility for unemployment insurance, benefit amounts, and the length of time benefits are available are determined by the State law under which unemployment insurance claims are established. The appeal process affords both employers and claimants the opportunity to request a review of how those eligibility rules were applied to a specific employment separation or change in employment status.

Claim Responses vs. Appeals

Responding to unemployment claims with information describing a separation of employment or a change in status is necessary to assist state agencies in making accurate eligibility decisions. While you may respond to a claim with all the facts in your possession, the facts of your separation may not be sufficient to meet the state guidelines for a disqualification or a non-charge to your account.

In contrast to the claim response, an appeal is your request for the state to assign a hearing officer to review the facts of a particular case because you believe the eligibility rules have not been properly applied. Requesting an appeal is not appropriate for every eligibility determination.

When to Appeal

If you disagree with a decision that the claimant is allowed benefits or that your unemployment account is subject to charges on a particular claim and wish to file an appeal, you must be prepared to present facts and evidence to support your argument that the state’s decision to allow benefits is incorrect.

In Voluntary Quit cases, you must be prepared to argue that the claimant did not have good cause to quit. In a Discharge case, you must be prepared to prove the employee’s discharge was for misconduct. As the appealing party, you bear the responsibility to provide the evidence that supports your position. This can be done effectively with:

First-hand witness testimony
A written resignation
Warning notices
An admission by the claimant
Written policy prohibiting the claimant's actions
The claimant's acknowledgement of receipt of the policy

In some situations, you may not have one or more of these proof sources available to you and in this appeal environment, what you think may have happened is not nearly as important as what you can prove.

Keep in mind that witness statements, even if properly authenticated, are hearsay and may not be sufficient to meet the burden of proof. If a claimant appears and denies the contents, the claimant’s first-hand testimony will typically outweigh the employer’s written statements. First hand testimony is always the strongest evidence.

Voluntary Resignations (Good Cause)

Good cause is generally defined as "such cause, connected with the work, as would lead a reasonable person who is otherwise interested in remaining employed to nonetheless leave the job." While the burden for showing good cause rests with the claimant, you must be prepared to offer an argument that good cause did not exist or evidence that the reason the claimant

gave for quitting is not factually correct.

Following are some common issues that make winning quit cases more difficult:

No documentation regarding the reason the claimant left employment
An employer significantly changed the claimant's work hours, pay, or job duties
An employer took no action to investigate employee complaints of unsafe work conditions or harassment
An employer gave an employee the choice of resigning or being discharged

Discharges (Misconduct)

Misconduct has been defined as a “willful, substantial breach of a material duty owed the employer which tends to damage the employer’s interests.” For purposes of unemployment eligibility, this means that a single instance of most policy violations will not be considered misconduct, but rather repeated violations of the same rule or policy after being warned. Not all violations of company policy are misconduct. Claimants who are discharged for poor job performance are rarely denied benefits unless you can prove the claimant was able to do the job to your satisfaction and did not.

Following are some common issues that result in employers losing discharge cases:

No final warning
Not following stated company discipline policy
No documentation of past policy violations
Not taking disciplinary action within a reasonable time after the policy violation
Discharge for an accumulation of incidents as opposed to for a specific final incident

Deciding to Appeal

If you disagree with the eligibility decision from the state and you have documentation and testimony to support your argument, a formal appeal and request for hearing should be filed.

If all relevant documentary evidence was not already submitted with the claim response, it should be submitted with the appeal. Remember, in some states evidence not submitted with your original response will not be considered.

Understanding when to file an appeal will help to conserve your organization’s time and resources while achieving the best possible results.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Absenteeism and Tardiness Are Not Always Considered Misconduct in UI Situations

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:22:43 GMT

We recently issued the following TIP to our clients which I thought I'd share. It highlights how important it is to understand the definition of misconduct and what facts and documentation are required to prove misconduct in your state.

Absenteeism and Tardiness Are Not Always Misconduct

When an employer discharges an employee for excessive absenteeism and/or tardiness the employee is not automatically disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The employer must prove the employee’s absences and/or tardiness were misconduct and this can be very difficult to do.

Disregard of procedures or failure to call in may constitute misconduct regardless of the reason for absence or lateness. For example, while an employee may allege illness, this will not usually excuse a no call, no show. However the employee’s failure to follow an employer’s policies will do no good in a protest unless the conduct and the efforts to reach the employee are documented.

To establish misconduct when an employee is discharged for absenteeism or tardiness, there are certain basic guidelines that should be followed.

Documentation

Maintain absence or tardiness records; note reasons given and related infractions, e.g., failure to produce required medical documentation.

Disciplinary Action

Progressive disciplinary action should be initiated in accordance with work rules and policies. Warnings should be issued and reviewed with an employee where appropriate.

A delay in initiating progressive discipline might result in the state unemployment agency ruling that the employee’s conduct was being tolerated and, in effect, approved by the employer.

Final Incident

The last incident of absenteeism or tardiness prior to discharge should involve conduct or behavior within the employee’s control. (If an employee, for example, is ill, calls in as instructed, and furnishes required medical documentation, there is no misconduct despite warnings.)

Caution about Point Systems

Many employers use a “point” system to manage employee absences. These systems provide a substantially simplified way to handle employee absences, but employers should remember the requirement about the final incident. The final incident must be within the employee’s control, so former employees frequently collect benefits even if their absences justify dismissal under a point system.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Reimbursing Employers - Do you know why it is so important to win your unemployment claims up front?

Tammy Mullin — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:42:44 GMT

Reimbursing employers follow different rules than merit-rated employers when it comes to benefit charges. Click here to find out why it is so important for reimbursing employers to win their cases up front.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

The Unemployment Hearing - Critical Guidance for Employers

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 04:21:21 GMT

Click here for Critical Guidance to Employers on the Unemployment Hearing.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Idaho DOL and TALX Hold Meetings to Improve Unemployment Insurance Processes

Admin — Tue, 25 May 2010 22:31:51 GMT

The following joint press release was issued today by the Idaho Department of Labor and TALX:

For Immediate Release:

Idaho Department of Labor and TALX Hold Joint Meetings to Improve Unemployment Insurance Processes

St. Louis, May 25, 2010 – The Idaho Department of Labor and TALX have announced a number of key initiatives resulting from joint meetings held in St. Louis, May 24 and 25, 2010.

The meetings were in response to a letter from Mr. Roger Madsen, Director Idaho Department of Labor, outlining concerns about the role of TALX in the unemployment insurance system.

"We were very pleased to meet with the executive team from TALX to review our relationship as we work together to process the unemployment claims in the state of Idaho," said Mr. Madsen. The group identified a number of key action items to improve the system including:

Collaboration on training for Idaho employers on the state unemployment insurance system;
Modification of documents used by both TALX and the state in the unemployment claims process;
Development of performance expectations subject to ongoing review and analysis; and
Continuation of dialogue with a follow-up meeting scheduled for July in Idaho.

Madsen continued "The state of Idaho and TALX have made excellent progress toward resolving outstanding concerns, and we have concluded that TALX has no reason or intent to delay benefits to those eligible under Idaho Employment Security Law."

"TALX would like to thank Mr. Madsen for contacting us regarding our relationship with the state of Idaho and we were honored to host him and two of his colleagues," said Joyce Dear, Senior Vice President and General Manager, TALX.

Dear continued, "Our meetings underscored our commitment to a strong relationship and will allow us to better achieve our common goals. We especially value Idaho’s input as it has been recognized for excellence."

The Idaho Department of Labor received the 2007 Pinnacle award from the US Department of Labor which recognized the agency for outstanding performance in unemployment insurance administration.

Both Madsen and Dear said, "A successful collaboration between Idaho’s Department of Labor and TALX can serve as a model for partnerships with other state workforce agencies."

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

An Open Letter to our UI Directors

Tammy Mullin — Tue, 25 May 2010 19:10:44 GMT

Dear UI Director,

By now, you are aware our company was the primary target of biased and grossly inaccurate reporting in an article that was published in the April 4, 2010 issue of The New York Times. They did not fact-check their article with us; instead, they relied on dated hearsay and rumors to create sensationalism about a highly emotional topic for unemployed Americans. This same article has been circulated and used by others as the foundation for decision making. We’d like to take a moment of your time to clarify some of the most pertinent inaccuracies.

We know that the high volume of claims resulting from the recession has created a challenging time for all of us involved in the UI process (states, employers, TPAs and claimants). TALX’s role in this process is to assist employers by managing the workflow related to unemployment filings. We want to assure you that at no time has TALX intentionally thwarted the claim process or encouraged unnecessary appeals. In fact, our experience shows that claimants are currently driving more appeals than employers. Contrary to what the article implied, we work to meet state deadlines to ensure that people who deserve their benefits receive them in a timely manner. In addition:

TALX handles millions of UI claims accurately, timely and efficiently every year, which benefits claimants, employers and states.
TALX spends countless hours training employers on how the UI process works and keeps them up-to-date on the latest regulations.
Our State Agency Response Center (SARC), established in 2004, leads the industry in providing service to each state UI agency and was created specifically to provide follow-up information quickly to the state.
TALX is strongly committed to supporting state initiatives towards efficiency and quality – such as SIDES, electronic data exchange and other state-specific process enhancements.

At TALX, we have great respect for state unemployment agencies and know you were also unfairly portrayed by the same New York Times journalist last year. We value our relationship with you but also recognize there is always room for improvement. As always, our goal is to serve our clients in accordance with your state regulations, but we also want to make sure your needs are being met by TALX. To that end, I encourage you to contact me with any concerns at (314) 684-2885. I would be delighted to hear from you.

With best regards,

Joyce Dear
Senior Vice President and General Manager
Tax Management Services

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Michigan Unemployment Tax Credit Application Now Available

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 24 May 2010 12:55:43 GMT

Contributing employers with positive account balances can now apply for the Michigan Tax Credit. Click here to link to the state’s website where you can find instructions on how to complete the application and other pertinent information.

The credit is 50% of the additional FUTA tax paid by the employer on the 2009 Federal 940 or the employer’s taxable wages for calendar year 2009 multiplied by the Nonchargeable Benefits Component (NBC) of the employer’s unemployment tax rate for 2009, whichever is lower.

You will need your 2009 Federal Form 940 to complete the required portion of the application. If you want to compute the amount of your credit, you will also need your 2009 Michigan Unemployment Tax Rate Determination and your total 2009 unemployment taxable wages as reported on UIA quarterly reports.

Once your application is approved, the amount of your credit will appear during the electronic filing process if you use EWAM to file your quarterly returns or be pre-printed on the blank hard copy contribution report.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Hawaii's Premium Plus Job Creation Plan

Tammy Mullin — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:19:23 GMT

In addition to the tax credit provided under the Hire Act, Hawaii employers could qualify for an additional tax credit under the Premium Plus Program to help offset the cost of healthcare preimiums for new qualified employees who had been unemployed for 6 weeks or longer prior to their hire date.

Click here to enroll or obtain additional information.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Comparison of State Unemployment Laws

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:08:05 GMT

The Department of Labor recently issued their annual comparison of state unemployment laws. It is a great resource for employers operating in more than one state. Click here to view.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Do you have an Effective Unemployment Cost Management Program?

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:20:01 GMT

Click here to find out how to craft one.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Hearsay Testimony in an Unemployment Hearing

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:51:18 GMT

Hearsay testimony is testimony at the hearing, under oath, from someone who heard about what happened from another person or who saw or heard an incident on tape after-the-fact. Some states are prohibited by law from making a finding of fact based on only hearsay evidence. Hearsay testimony is not as credible as first-hand testimony because the person who actually witnessed what happened at the time is not testifying under oath at the hearing and therefore cannot be questioned by the hearing officer.

If the claimant appears at the hearing and denies everything, the claimant's first-hand denial almost always outweighs hearsay testimony. End result - the claimant probably wins.

Hearsay Evidence Includes:

Testimony about an interview of the people who saw what happened
Testimony about what was seen on video or heard on tape, unless the tape itself is presented as evidence
A written statement by someone who does not appear to testify
Documentation created by someone who does not appear to testify
Testimony about a complaint made by a customer
Testimony by anyone who did not see what happened, but who made a conclusion about the claimant's activities based on what they saw or heard later

As we discussed before, hearing decisions often come down to a question of credibility and greater weight will always be given to first-hand witness testimony. The hearing officer needs to decide who is the most credible to make his findings of fact. He/she uses the findings of fact to decide whether the facts support the claimant's eligibility for benefits in accordance with state law.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Rhode Island - Special UI Provisions for Disaster Impacted Employers and Workers

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:31:00 GMT

Situation

Recent flooding in Rhode Island has created special unemployment insurance circumstances. In accordance with the unemployment statutes, impacted employers may be relieved of benefit charges and affected workers may have the one-week waiting period waived.

What Employers Need to Know

Employers incurring layoffs, due to the floods, must complete a "waiver and relief" form in order to be granted relief from unemployment benefit charges. This statutory relief applies to both tax contributing and reimbursing employers. Completion of the form is also necessary for a worker’s UI claim waiting week to be waived.

A copy of the "Employer Application for Relief of Benefit Charges and Waiting Period Waiver Due to a Natural Disaster/State of Emergency" can be found at http://www.dlt.ri.gov/ui/FloodInfo.htm - scroll down and click on "waiver and relief application".

Waivers are not automatic and must be completed by the employer, not an agent. The completed form should be faxed to the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training at (401) 462-8413

What You Can Expect

Employers are encouraged to document the completion and proper submission of the "waiver and relief" application for future reference.

The state agency has established a dedicated phone number and e-mail address to assist employers with the UI relief and waiver process: Phone – (401) 462-8999; E-mail – uiemployerhelp@dlt.ri.gov.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Do You Know How Hiring Practices Impact Your Unemployment Costs?

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:36:51 GMT

Click here to find out more.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

An additional 30 days of Extended Unemployment Benefits may be on the way

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:37:31 GMT

Looks like we may see another 30 days of extended benefits as this article from ABC news indicates. While I personally believe that deficit spending is generally a bad thing, at this point, what choice do we have? We have a huge population of workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and they need support.

My concern is that we seem to spend a lot of energy bantering back and forth on 30 day extensions while we have a much larger problem to address. The economy is in a state of flux. We are seeing old technologies and ways of doing things dying out to make room for the new, (see "Are There Jobs Out There?").

We need to do a better job of preparing our unemployed workforce to take on new challenges. We need to be doing things to promote innovation. I think employers can have a great impact in this area. I've talked about the importance of having a Reemployment Strategy in the past, but I don't think I've talked about making sure that as an employer, that strategy is aligned with what is happening in today's economy.

It is not enough to offer resume writing support. Workers need to be taught to think differently. They need to learn to look at their experiences and see a skill set. They need help understanding how that skill set could translate into new opportunities. And, they need to learn how to market themselves differently. Times are tough and competition is fierce for those open positions that do exist.

I'll get off my soapbox here shortly, but I encourage employers to really think about what they do to support exiting employees. Getting these folks back to work as quickly as possible is a win/win situation for both the employer and the employee. Whether you choose to use an outside service such as the TALX Reemployment Service or do it in house, just do it. Not only will you save some unemployment costs, but it feels great knowing that you helped someone in such a meaningful way.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Michigan 2010 FUTA Tax Credit If You Meet These Qualifications

Tammy Mullin — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:25:21 GMT

Situation

Michigan employers with a positive account balance, who were subject to the FUTA tax increase of 0.3% in 2009, can receive a tax credit for 2010. The credit amount will be either 50% of the additional FUTA tax paid by the employer or the employer’s taxable wages for the previous calendar year multiplied by the non-chargeable benefits component (NBC) of the employer’s unemployment tax rate for that year, whichever is the lesser amount.

What Employers Need to Know

To qualify for this credit employers must meet all the following requirements:

• A contributing employer has applied for the state tax credit and has paid Michigan unemployment taxes for five years or more and has a tax rate for the year of the Michigan tax credit.

• Has a positive reserve balance in its experience account as of June 30th of the previous year.

• Has filed all required quarterly tax reports for the year prior to the year of the credit

• Has paid the additional FUTA taxes on IRS form 940 no later the December 31, 2010.

• Has paid its FUTA taxes prior to submitting the Michigan Tax Credit application.

• Has certified the amount of additional 2009 FUTA taxes paid when it applies for the credit.

Employers can apply for this credit through the UIA Employer Web Account Manager (EWAM) at www.michigan.gov/uia or by completing Form UIA 1110, "Application for Michigan Unemployment Tax Credit". Both application options will be available soon. The credit can be used against your Michigan unemployment liability beginning in the quarter ending 6/30/2010.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Facts About The Unemployment Insurance System

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:35:39 GMT

The New York Times published an article about TALX on April 4, 2010. Many of the points within the article were inaccurate. As a result, readers may have drawn conclusions that are not fact-based. TALX stands by our outstanding employees and expertise as well as the important role that we play in the unemployment insurance industry.

The unemployment insurance system is run and administered by states though it is funded by employers. This system, by law, provides unemployment benefits in certain circumstances for the under-employed and unemployed workers. This includes lack of work issues.

When a former employee believes he/she is eligible to collect unemployment insurance, that individual goes to the state to file a claim. The state then processes that claim and then sends it to the former employer to see if the reasons for separation supplied by the individual and the employer are in agreement. There is agreement with the majority of claims and benefits are subsequently granted by the state. However, in some cases, there is disagreement. When that occurs, the states may collect more detailed information from the employer and the individual to make a determination on his or her eligibility.

TALX is fully committed to aiding the communications process between states and the employers we serve in order to help ensure individuals get the unemployment benefits they deserve. TALX handles millions of claims accurately and efficiently every year, which benefits consumers, employers and states. Our State Agency Response Team leads the industry in providing service to each state.

Our process helps protect the individuals for whom the unemployment insurance system is designed to assist. Despite what The New York Times article reported, TALX participates in the process but does not make judgments regarding benefits.

We invite you to direct your questions to the TALX hotline 314-684-2599.

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Do you have a Reemployment Strategy?

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:27:36 GMT

In 2009, there were approximately 29.3 million unemployment claims filed in the US. A source within the Department of Labor tells us that nationally, in 94% of the cases, benefit eligibility was determined at this initial claim level and no appeals were filed. Of the 6% that were appealed and went to a hearing, claimants filed for appeal three times more often than employers did.

So who wins? Interestingly enough, regardless of whether it was the claimant who filed the appeal or the employer who filed the appeal the win % is generally 36% in favor of the appellant with claimants having slightly more success.

These trends haven’t changed much over the past 5 years. The appeal rate has gone up slightly and the % of the appeals by claimants has increased slightly while those filed by employers has decreased slightly. Not an unexpected outcome given the current economic climate.

So what does this mean to you the employer? Well, the unemployment system was established to help employees who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. As an employer, you should continue to appeal decisions where you feel your former employee should not be eligible for benefits. However, since the majority of people filing a claim for unemployment are eligible to collect, employers can have a greater impact on controlling their unemployment costs by helping to control the duration of an unemployment claim. The best way to do that is to provide former workers with the tools and assistance they need to get back to work more quickly.

Whether you choose to use an outside resource such as the TALX Reemployment Service or do it yourself in-house, having a Reemployment Strategy for former workers is an essential part of any Unemployment Cost Management program. The right strategy can get former workers back to work 33% faster than those that are provided no assistance at all.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Kansas and Indiana Reductions for 2010

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:44:43 GMT

Kansas

In the state of Kansas Governor Parkinson recently signed House Bill 2676 that lowered unemployment insurance tax rates and provided additional time to submit their tax contribution payment.

Indiana

In the state of Indiana; Governor Mitch Daniels recently signed Senate Bill 23 that postpones scheduled unemployment tax changes to take effect on January 1, 2011, rather than January 1, 2010.

What Employers Need to Know

Kansas

Kansas HB 2676 sets tax rates for 2010 and 2011. The Kansas agency immediately mailed revised 2010 rate notices to the employers impacted by the bill which was signed by Governor Parkinson on March 24, 2010.

In addition, all employers are given an additional 90 days in which to make their contribution payments for the first three quarters of 2010 and 2011 without accruing interest. However if the payments are not made within that 90-day window, interest will be assessed from the original due date.

The 90-day grace period provided to all employers does not apply to submission of the quarterly wage report, only to the payment of UI tax contributions. Quarterly wage reports are still due the last day of the month following quarter end. Reports submitted past the due date are subject to a penalty.

Indiana

Indiana SB 23 postpones from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011 the increase in the taxable wage base from $7,000 to $9,500. In addition, it postpones the increase in the maximum rate from 5.6% to 12.0% and decreases the rate for certain employers, from 2.7% to 2.5%. Changes to the fund ratio and rate schedules were also delayed to take effect in 2011 rather than in 2010.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

How is the insured unemployment rate calculated?

Tammy Mullin — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:12:30 GMT

Aimee Cernik, a member of the TALX Unemployment Product Management team, is our guest blogger again today with some insight into how the insured unemployment rate is calculated.

Last week I discussed what is involved with computing the national unemployment rate (NUR), an essential published monthly rate that helps determine the overall health of our economy. Why is the NUR so important in projecting the health of the economy? Because a low rate of unemployment shows signs of economic prosperity, as well as the potential for inflation, and conversely a high rate of unemployment reveals signs of a recession or a depressed economy.

Almost of equal importance is another unemployment number used as an economic health gauge is the insured unemployment rate (IUR), or the volume and length in which unemployment claims are filed.

What is insured unemployment? The unemployment insurance program was created to provide temporary financial assistance to those who became unemployed through no fault of their own (as determined by individual State law). This system was designed to hold significant funds during upswings in the economy, and to ultimately pay out in the downswings, and it is typically funded through a tax on employers. It is important to note that each State has their own separate unemployment insurance programs, and each program may vary slightly, but all are designed within the Federal law guidelines.

What does IUR mean to you? The IUR is often used as an indicator of labor market conditions across the Nation and within each State. This rate is solely collected and calculated from the number of unemployment claims filed, across all states’ unemployment insurance programs, and is posted weekly by the Employment and Training Administration.

There are two rate classifications for the IUR, initial claims and continued claims. Those that file for unemployment for the very first time are counted as “initial”, which is treated as a notice that a person is starting a period of unemployment. Since filing for unemployment is a weekly to biweekly process, those that continue to qualify and receive the benefits after the initial week are counted towards the insured unemployment figures as “continued”.

So why two rates? The initial claims rate gives a snapshot of the emerging employment market. A rise in the initial claim rate may signal a weakened economy, while the continued claims rate may expose how enduring the current state of the economy may last, as well as an overall lack of available employment.

Why is filed unemployment claims data not included in the national unemployment rate? Both the NUR and the IUR are important sources that help economists’ trend the economy as a whole and within States; however, the IUR exclusively focuses on filed unemployment claims, which results in the exclusion of several key groups to consider in the total unemployment rate such as: self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, certain not-for-profit organizations, workers that have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and individuals that simply do not file for unemployment benefits. Because of these limitations, data on IUR cannot be used towards total unemployment in the United States. Although the IUR is not included in the NUR, it still lends itself quite readily in trending the state of the economy.

To learn more about the insured unemployment rate, please visit the Employment and Training Administration website at http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

Aimee Cernik

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

How is the national unemployment rate calculated?

Tammy Mullin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:43:56 GMT

Aimee Cernik, a member of the TALX Unemployment Product Management team, is our guest blogger today with some insight into how the national unemployment rate is calculated.

Did you ever wonder how one arrives at a number that is responsible for determining the overall health trajectory of the economy? In fact, every month a division of the United States Department of Labor called the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases the previous month’s information on the position of the national unemployment rate. Now, one may assume the BLS bases the national unemployment rate on the total number of unemployment claims filed across all the states, but there are many more factors to consider in calculating the rate such as those who are unemployed and have not filed for unemployment, those that are not eligible for benefits, and those whose benefits have already been exhausted. And, this information is not available by exclusively looking at filed unemployment claims.

So if you cannot get the complete picture from filed unemployment claims- how does the BLS evaluate and determine the national unemployment rate? Since it is nearly impossible to account for the entire employed and unemployed population, the BLS conducts a sample study titled “Current Population Study” (CPS). This CPS consists of 60,000 households (approx. 110, 000 individuals) that will participate in a structured interview, which is conducted by 2,200 trained interviewers…every month.

60,000 may not seem like a comparative number to the entire national population, but this sample is statistically sound and large enough to result in a representative and reliable estimate of the true unemployed population. To ensure accuracy and remove any bias and sampling error the BLS has built in measures to keep the information clean, fresh and up to date. According to the BLS, “25% of the households in the sample are changed on a monthly basis for the specific purpose that no household in the sample will be interviewed more than four times consecutively. After a household is rotated out of the survey, it is not interviewed again for 8 months”. The BLS has stated that the monthly estimate of unemployment from the sample is within 290,000 of the total census, and the any error resulting from sampling is not significant enough to alter the total and true unemployment rate.

So who is actually included in the survey? The BLS is selective of who can participate in the CPS, and has set criteria as to who is considered part of the United States labor force, which includes anyone of 16 years or older who is employed, or is actively seeking employment. Those who are NOT included in the survey population are those under the age of 16, those that choose not to enter the labor market or not actively seeking employment, and those serving in the armed forces.

Since the CPS is collecting data that is the foundation for the national unemployment rate, the information gathered must be done correctly, administered the same way-every time, to obtain the facts. Participants are never asked directly if they are unemployed, but rather are asked a series of questions to help conclude their status within the labor force. Moreover, the interviewers solely gather the information, and never determine a respondent’s employment classification. Rather the employment classification is determined by inputing the information into a computer program, and in turn, the program classifies the respondents as unemployed, employed, or simply not in the labor force.

Certain questions are asked of those not in the labor force to obtain additional information as described by the BSL as , “their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work.” Finally the interviews and the information collected are then compared to the number of people in the labor force, thus resulting in the national unemployment rate percentage.

Who knew there was so much work involved to produce such an important economic benchmark! To learn more about the CPS or the information provided by the BLS, please visit their website at: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#why

Aimee Cernik

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

First-Hand Evidence in an Unemployment Hearing

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:23:39 GMT

To prove at an unemployment hearing that a claimant’s separation is disqualifying, it is not enough to simply tell the hearing officer what happened. In the case of a discharge, the employer must prove misconduct in order for the claimant to be disqualified from benefits. If the claimant quit, he has to prove he quit with good cause to be allowed benefits. In either case, the key to winning at hearing is first-hand evidence.

First–hand evidence includes:

First-hand witness testimony
A video or audio recording
Time sheets or schedules
Warning notices
An admission by the claimant
A written resignation

First-hand witness testimony is testimony at the hearing, under oath, from someone who saw what happened or who was present at the time of the final incident

If the claimant was discharged, the best witnesses are the people who saw or heard the final incident at the time it happened.

If the claimant quit, the best witnesses are the people who know the most about the reason the claimant gave for quitting. The best first-hand evidence is a written resignation submitted by the claimant.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Florida Passes Legislation to Decrease Unemployment Costs for Employers

Tammy Mullin — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:41:22 GMT

Situation

The unemployment tax increase for Florida employers this year turned out to be much bigger than expected due to the soaring unemployment rate and a law change passed last year. Tax rate notices issued in December 2009 reflected this increase. Florida lawmakers acted quickly this week to pass legislation to rollback that increase for two years. Governor Crist signed the bills immediately.

What Employers Need to Know

The legislation delays the increase of the taxable wage base from $7,000 to $8,500 until 2012 when it will increase to $8,500. It will also change the factors used to calculate employers’ tax rates for 2010 and 2011 resulting in lower rates. The minimum rate for 2010 will decrease but the maximum rate will remain 5.4%.

The law change also contains a special installment payment plan option which allows employers to spread their 2010 and 2011 payments out over a designated period of time. An annual $5.00 administrative fee will be charged employers that want to take advantage of the installment plan. Information on how to take advantage of this option will be on the state electronic filing website and the blank quarterly reports.

The payment of interest on the federal advances will be made through an employer assessment. Barring a federal law change, interest will be due beginning in 2011.

What You Can Expect

The state will be issuing revised tax rate notices on March 22nd to reflect the lower factors.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Temporary Extension of Unemployment Insurance Programs Enacted

Tammy Mullin — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:53:15 GMT

Situation

Late on March 2, 2010, Congress passed and President Obama quickly signed a one-month extension to expiring unemployment insurance (UI) benefits provisions.

What Employers Need to Know

The legislation does not create any additional or new UI benefits. It simply pushes back the expiration date of current benefit provisions, from February 28, 2010 to April 5, 2010. These UI assistance measures are:

• Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) – These are 100% federally funded benefits available to persons who exhaust their regular UI benefits.

• State Extended Benefits (EB) Full Federal Funding – The federal government will pick up 100% of the cost of state extended benefits. By law, the feds cannot cover the cost of state EB for government entities and Indian tribes, so these employers are liable for any EB paid to their unemployed workers.

• Federal Additional Compensation (FAC) – This is a 100% federally funded supplement of $25 added to all weekly UI benefits paid, be they regular, EUC or EB.

Next Steps

Despite this temporary extension, thousands of individuals are beginning to exhaust the maximum 99 weeks of combined state and federal UI benefits. Therefore, it is expected Congress will work on additional extensions through the end of 2010.

Special Note: The temporary, one-month extension also applies to the COBRA subsidy originally enacted under the 2009 Recovery Act.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.

Which States Charge a Payroll Tax to Help Fund Unemployment

Tammy Mullin — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:47:24 GMT

Yesterday I posted a blog about Vermont legislative activity related to a possible new payroll tax paid by the employee to help fund unemployment benefits. Decided to do a bit more digging and found out that a couple other states are already assessing a payroll tax for this purpose. Those states are:

Alaska - charges 0.5% of wages

New Jersey - charges 0.3825% of wages generally and 0.0825% for workers of governmental reimbursers

Pennsylvania - 0.08% of wages in certain instances.

Just thought I'd pass this along.

Tammy Mullin

This weblog is sponsored by TALX.