TALX recently held a webcast regarding the impact of the current recession on federal and state unemployment taxes and what employers should expect in 2009 and future years. TALX provided a national economic update on state unemployment trust fund solvency, individual state unemployment rates and impacts on 2009/2010 FUTA taxes. The implications of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as well as insight regarding budgeting considerations for FUTA and SUI were discussed as well.

The upshot of this discussion is that currently 14 states have requested Title XII loans from the federal government. If they are not repaid within established time frames, those states will lose their FUTA credit, thus increasing employers’ federal taxes. Virtually all states have seen dramatic drops in their trust fund balances which will cause state unemployment rates to increase. Couple this with individual employer claim and benefit charge activity, many employers could be facing significantly higher unemployment tax rates in 2010 and beyond.

TALX has traditionally performed tax rate projections for interested employers. However, an even more robust forecasting tool has been created that will provide an employer with more information with which to make informed decisions regarding unemployment taxes. For more information on the enhanced forecasting tools, please contact Pete Kreishok at 314.214.7325 or via email at pkrieshok@talx.com

Employee portals 2.0 are bound to happen as HR teams begin exploiting the newest Web 2.0 technologies to deliver HR services.  Organizations clearly want to better engage employees, and the employee portal is a proven platform to deliver HR services.  And now, portals provide a terrific source for collaboration too.  To have the biggest impact with these portal upgrades, structuring the employee experience so each individual can quickly obtain just the information they need is vital to creating employee portals that appeal to all.  

To meet the desires of the current multi-generational workforce, more attention must be given to managing the user experience.  The user interface has now become even more valuable in addressing the distinct communication preferences of different generations.  Today’s employee portal projects demand well-executed usability testing to ensure each employee has an experience that works for them.  The best portals will offer an authentic experience that reinforces the employment brand already established.  See the article below for a more in depth look into what it means to build an authentic user experience.

http://exde.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/designing-authentic-experiences/

Leveraging the Web 2.0 outcomes, HR now has the opportunity to engage employees in a different way that allows the employee to actually participate at a new level.  To illustrate, rather than just observe, employees can actually participate which enables employees to define the make-up of an authentic experience.  For example, using popularity features on employee portals can enable employees to give their opinion instantly and find out what other employees think too.  Feedback like this was hard to come by in the past, but in the future HR can leverage these features to get timely reactions and build an authentic employee experience.

HR is watching closely as new web technologies gain proponents elsewhere in their organization. Marketing departments are using Twitter to appeal directly to clients.  Wikis have proven useful tools for training employees and for managing projects.  And many PR pros are using blogs to develop and manage public dialogue surrounding their organizations.  HR may find these experiments useful in determining how and when they’ll want to join in to address their own branding and communication needs.

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Well, my speculation was way off! This one surprised me and, I'm sure, many others.

The Administration has decided to move forward with the FAR rule requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. In a press release dated July 8, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "After a careful review, the Administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will apply to federal solicitations and contract awards Government-wide starting on September 8, 2009." Click here for the full press release. I interpret the term full implementation to indicate that the rule will be implemented as it currently stands, which includes a verification requirement for existing employees. No mention was made in the press release of the lawsuit filed against the rule by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

Read a couple interesting articles this week.

The first ISS - Unemployment reforms sweep nation due to federal recovery incentives talks about reform from the standpoint of the "incentives" states are given in the form of ARRA dollars to expand their programs so that more individuals will be eligible to collect for longer periods of time. The reform here is program expansion.

Another article I read was from the state of Indiana, New Indiana law changes unemployment rules - Fox 28: South Bend, Elkhart IN News, Weather, Sport which talks about new laws around proof of job search where recipients must "submit at least one job application each week" and new rules around acceptance of job offers which outlines when recipients are required to accept offered employment.

State funds pay out billions of dollars a year in unemployment claims due to fraud for numerous reasons. One of those reasons is due to individuals who are not actively seeking to become reemployed. Fraud is a drain on unemployment trust funds and means more taxes for state employers.

I think legislators from Indiana have the right idea, are interested in the right kind of reform and are putting in place laws that are making a permanent impact on the future of Unemployment Insurance as an insurance program. Laws and procedures which address fraud help preserve state fund balances, keep taxes down for employers which in turn I believe will help employers produce more jobs.

Tammy Mullin

Last week, my wife and I celebrated our one year anniversary by taking a trip to San Francisco. We spent a couple of days in the Napa/Sonoma Valley area tasting and learning about wine. Being wine novices, we were pretty fascinated by all the factors that go into the taste and quality of each of wine. It turns out there’s more to making wine than just fermenting some grapes. Not only are there the grapes themselves to consider, but the soil they’re grown in, the amount of moisture where they are grown, and even the elevation. Another major factor we learned was the importance of the type of barrel used. It was interesting to learn how a barrel made from an oak tree in France leads to a different taste than a barrel made from an oak tree in Missouri. This multitude of factors made what seemed to be a fairly straightforward process into something very complex and interesting.

Being the I/Oish person that I am, I found the complexity of factors that go into making a good wine to be not so different from the complexity of factors that go into finding a good job candidate. Now of course I’m not talking about storing candidates in barrels to see how well they age, but often times searching for a quality job candidate is mistaken as a fairly straightforward and obvious process. The truth is that most of the time there are a number of factors that go into what it takes to be successful on a job. As a result, it is important to use appropriate selection tools available to ensure that we’re accounting for these critical factors. This can include assessments, behavioral interviews, job simulations, and other kinds of job related tools. The key is to take the due diligence to appreciate the complexity of truly finding quality job candidates. Without accounting for this complexity we can be left with sour grapes.

Nate Studebaker

One of the hot topics at this spring’s IHRIM Conference in San Diego was how to engage employees in the organization. Conference sessions revealed that we are not in want of good ideas centered on using web 2.0 technologies to help us engage employees.  While technology is a great tool, careful consideration of exactly what the technology is helping you communicate is crucial.

Taking a page from the marketing handbook on using effective client case studies to promote product benefits, a focus on actively communicating “why an organization is a good place to work” provides a very appealing story.  Engaged employees are the ones whose personal values closely match the organization’s values.  Consider communicating the organization’s values in a first person employee story as a powerful way to connect with your employee’s values.  Tammy Erickson’s article below has some great examples of how organizations have accomplished this connection.

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/erickson/2009/04/a_low_cost_way_to_improve_enga.html?cm_re=homepage-031909-_-body-middle-tert-_-voices

So, how do you leverage web 2.0 in this story-telling connection?  I would suggest a practical way is to capture and publish short video testimonies from employees.  Ask them to tell their stories about what gets them excited about their job or team.  Why do they feel the way they do about the mission of the organization?  Videos like this would be priceless in helping employees connect with what the organization is trying to accomplish and how each employee’s hard work makes a difference. What a wonderful way to firmly connect the values of organization with employees.

Yes, a picture (video) is worth a thousand words.  So, I quickly created this sample (link below) using a Flip Video camcorder (under $200) and up loaded my video to YouTube.  Think about how this could be adapted for your organization.

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

Mike Smith

There are alternatives to a layoff available under state unemployment insurance programs that employers may want to consider to preserve their workforce and help workers keep their jobs during this economic downturn.

Employers in Berks County, PA are offering reduced work weeks with great success. In fact, all states offer partial benefits for reduced hours, although the extent of benefits will vary by state. This option provides continued employment to the employee who can supplement their income through partial benefits.

Another alternative relates to worksharing programs. A recent New York Times article talks about this program highlighting that "many executives and economists hail it for keeping workers employed and companies staffed with skilled labor" while stating that "only a fraction of the businesses and workers that are actually eligible are benefiting."

Worksharing is only available in 18 states; Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

Requirements for both programs vary by state, so be sure to review requirements on your state’s website before opting for either option.

What I find interesting is that we hear a lot of talk about costly job creation programs (the White House just issued their Roadmap to Recovery which outlines specific job creation measures and state governors including Missouri’s Gov. Nixon are talking about job creation in each of their individual states), but very little about what can be done to save jobs using programs that already exist, are less costly to taxpayers and are underutilized.

Tammy Mullin

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2009-28 on May 28th informing employers of the recent changes and clarifications to the IRS 8850 form used as part of the WOTC screening process. You can access the link to this important notice at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-28.pdf

The changes occurred due in part to the additions of two new WOTC categories:  unemployed veterans, and disconnected youth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was signed into law on February 17, 2009. The IRS originally posted the revised 8850 form and Instructions a few weeks ago, but then pulled it back to provide more clarity and definition. Through TALX’ involvement in the National Employment Opportunities Network (“NEON”) we have access to information that leads us to believe that there may be additional revisions to the form 8850 in the near future. We are closely monitoring the situation and providing input and guidance.

Given the gap between when new categories were signed into law in February and when the IRS published the revised 8850 form in May, the IRS has allowed for "Transition Relief", defined as:  

any employer who hires an unemployed veteran or a disconnected youth after December 31, 2008, and before July 17, 2009, will be considered to satisfy the deadline IF the employer submits the pre-screening notice to the designated local agency to request certification not later than August 17, 2009.  

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

The direction provided in the instructions for the Form I-9, the Handbook for Employers (M-274), and the E-Verify User Manual for the employment date in Section 2 could provide more specific. Consequently, there are different interpretations used by entities such as employers, E-Verify Designated Agents, electronic I-9 service providers, ICE, USCIS, and OFCCP. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone used the same definition!

I propose that the rule for the employment date in Section 2 should be the following:

The employment date in Section 2 may be the current date (the date Section 2 is signed) or a prior date, but it cannot be a future date.

Here is the rational for this definition.

1. The language in the cerfication statement in Section 2 says 'that the employee began employment on (month/day/year)                  '  Words have meaning and this language says began rather than will begin. Therefore, the language indicates that the date should be the current date or a prior date and not a future date.
2. Since the signatory is attesting that the information in Section 2 is accurate, using a future date requires the signatory to attest to an event that has not yet occurred. Since there is no way to guarantee the employee will actually start work on a future date, it does not make sense to attest to a future event by entering a future date in Section 2.
3. E-Verify will not accept an employment date that is in the future. Since E-Verify, the government's free system that employers can use to verify a new hire is authorized to work in the U.S., does not accept a future date, it makes sense to not enter a future date in Section 2 of the Form I-9.
4. There are basically two reasons for entering a prior date in Section 2 of the Form I-9.
   1. The employer has three work days do complete Section 2 of the Form I-9 for a new hire. Therefore, the employment date could be prior to the Section 2 signature date.
   2. If the employer identifies that an employee is missing a Form I-9, the employer should complete a Form I-9 as soon as possible. In this situation, the employment date in Section 2 will be more than three days prior to the Section 2 signature date.

One other point, there is really no relationship between the Section 1 and the Section 2 signature dates. However, the Section 1 signature date must be the same or prior to the Section 2 signature date. The employee should complete Section 1 before or at the same time the employer completes Section 2.

By the way, the employment date in Section 2 MUST be completed when the employer signs Section 2. The Form I-9 instructions state that employers must record in Section 2 the date employment begins. Some employers, especially in the staffing industry, leave the employment date blank and when the employee is placed in a position the employment date is entered. This is not compliant and is a very dangerous practice that would likely be considered to be a substantial violation in the event of an ICE audit. Substantial violations have a high likelyhood of resulting in penalties against the employer. This practice also results in the employment date in Section 2 being a future date since the date would be after the Section 2 signature date.

If you use the rule proposed above you should have compliant employment dates in Section 2 of your Forms I-9.

Good luck!

Dave Fowler

but I wish we were being smarter.

• Why lend money to someone with no income, no job, and no assets? Isn't that how we got into the current economic situation?

• Who signs the largest contract ever had without reading it? Isn't this what the Congress did with the bailout?

• Who would make largest purchase ever and not track the money went and what was received? Isn't this what the government is doing with the TARP funds?

• Isn't it just common sense to only use stimulus money to hire legal workers?

• Why increase pork barrel spending and drive up the deficit in tough economic? That's not how we handle our family budgets, is it?

• Why don't we put politics aside and do what’s right for the country? Aren't we allowing people to use the economic downturn for personal and political gain?

• Why don't those in power take responsibility and be accountable rather than blame others?

• Do smart people really raise taxes and increase spending when cash is tight? Shouldn't we stop ineffective spending and only invest to increase revenues and reduce costs?

• What happened to using plain common sense?

Let's use what we already have to solve the problems we face. For example:

• E-Verify works. Let’s use it and improve it. E-Verify gets negative press because IT WORKS. If the government can punish an employer for hiring an illegal worker, then the government has an obligation to provide a way for employers to verify that a worker is legal. As with any software product, there are specific situations that need to be fixed. However, as a software product E-Verify:
  • 96% – works perfectly
  • 3.5% – detects invalid users
  • 0.5% – results in data correction that benefits the employee

• The administration is starting discussions on immigration reform next week. Here are some ideas for resolving the bickering over immigration reform:
  • Allow illegal immigrants who are already here to stay, unless they are a criminal. It is not feasible to force these individuals to leave the country.
  • Require illegal immigrants to register with the government. Give them 1 year to do so. If someone does not register, they are arrested, jailed, and deported when caught.
  • Illegal immigrants can never vote, hold public office, or be appointed to a position where they can change our laws. This would eliminate the politics from the process since both major political parties consider illegal immigrants to be new voters.
  • Secure the borders to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and human smuggling
    
    
• Don’t restrict capitalism by unfairly and unnecessarily burdening employers. Be patient and let the system work. The current economic climate will pass. Do things that encourage employers and employees and be true to our core values.
  
  
• Focus on the big, important, and urgent things first. Demonstrate a smart approach to the world.
  
  
• Experts estimate that it would cost $10 billion to solve the world’s clean water problem. Allocate $10 billion of the stimulus money to solve this problem. This will help restore our standing in the world community.
  
  
• America’s first priority is to protect our freedom and the freedom of others. Freedom built our country and it will continue to do so if we let it.

 Again, maybe it's just me...