Shared Work Programs are voluntary employer programs intended to provide a practical and mutually beneficial alternative to layoffs when business declines. These plans enable companies to keep their skilled workforce intact, and eliminate costs associated with recruiting, hiring and training new employees.  Participating workers are able to avoid hardships associated with total unemployment.  Both are able to quickly return to full operational status, once economic conditions rebound.

In basic terms, the hours of all workers participating in an approved Shared Work Program are reduced, but lost wages are then supplemented by partial unemployment insurance (UI) benefits.  Participating workers are not subject to normal unemployment requirements regarding availability and work search; however, they must be available for their scheduled work week.

Employers interested in participating in a Shared Work Program must apply for plan approval with the state unemployment insurance agency.  Once formally approved, an employer will need to supply weekly or bi-weekly certification information on each participating worker to the agency.

Each state agency’s plan will specify:

·         Plan duration (generally 6 months to a year)

·         Range of reduced hours allowed (normally10%-40%)

·         Number of partial UI benefit weeks allowed (usually 26 or 52 weeks)

·         Amount of weekly UI benefits payable

The states listed below offer Shared Work Programs.  Details can be found on the unemployment agency websites as follows:

Tammy Mullin

We know that all states handle their own unemployment insurance programs and have their own rules and regulations regarding unemployment in a variety of categories including how much they pay for weekly benefits and who qualifies for unemployment.  But, did you ever wonder how all those differences combine to determine what it costs an employer to do business in each state from an unemployment perspective? 

Well, below is the maximum amount you could have paid in 2009 per employee in your state if you were max rated in descending order from most expensive to least expensive. 

Tammy Mullin

HR Service Matters

By: Mike Smith

Well maybe you guessed it, but I bought Seth Godin’s book; Linchpin (see my 1/26 blog).  The book’s main premise as I see it is that a new and important workplace component (the linchpin) has arrived.  The linchpins are the people that invent, lead, connect with others and generally make things happen.  While the book is intended to help the individual learn how to be a linchpin and thus become indispensable, I think we all want to cultivate these folks and have many linchpins in our organizations (and expectantly on our individual team).

As I quickly thumbed through my new read, I noticed that in one chapter Seth writes about “The Culture of Connection.”   Here I saw another insight for HR services.  Linchpins need to connect to succeed.  I believe HR can and should provide the services to help their linchpins connect inside and outside the organization.  Seth speaks about job satisfaction and offers the proposition that the key distinction between places to work is really the perceived connection between the employee and coworkers.

We have all seen the excitement in the marketplace about “we’ve got an app for that.”  Employees live in that world and I’ll bet the linchpins thrive in it.  We would do well to create an environment that enables collaboration and connecting tools for our linchpins.  I believe that getting some visibility for the people who are making a difference in our organizations will go a long way to building linchpins and keeping them too.  Do you have an app for that?

Here is a more detailed review of Linchpin if you want to know more about its content.

http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race-trap/linchpin-a-review.html

Hire Now Tax Cut Act of 2010

Once again we are seeing congress take an active role in stimulating job growth and getting Americans back to work.  The Hire Now Tax Cut Act of 2010 was introduced February 3, 2010, by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.  The bill will allow an employer to hire unemployed workers and not pay the employer’s share (6.2%) of the Social Security payroll tax for the remainder of 2010.  The payroll tax incentive would provide an immediate impact to hire employees now rather than waiting until 2011 for a tax credit. 

An additional incentive of $1,000 is available if the employer keeps the qualified employer on the payroll for a continuous 52 weeks.  If a worker is eligible for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), the employers must select one benefit or the other for 2010.

 “This is an affordable, effective and targeted proposal to get the American people back to work,” said Hatch.  “As a conservative, I appreciate that this proposal isn’t about more and more government spending; it’s about tax relief to get employers hiring again, which is exactly what millions of unemployed Americans most desperately need.”

The devil is always in the details and there are many to iron out as this bill works it way through Congress.  We will face similar issues that we had with the new WOTC stimulus categories this year, such as how will employers verify that an individual was unemployed.  There are also concerns by many that the slow economic recovery will not lead to higher payrolls in 2010 than in 2009.

Angela Lockman

Even while forced to layoff part of their workforce thereby reducing capacity, employers continue to foot the bill for rising unemployment costs.  They not only fund benefits for their own displaced workers, but also for workers of companies that have gone out of business.  On top of all of that, employment litigation rises during times of increased unemployment increasing the burden further on the employer. 

Employers need to properly prepare for a layoff situation paying particular attention to the selection criteria for individuals involved (see also TALX Blog "Preparing for a Layoff".) 

Tammy Mullin

The charges recorded to your unemployment account have a huge impact on your tax rate.  As noted in a previous blog "Unemployment Benefit Charge Auditing" you should be checking the charges for common charge errors and contesting those charges with the state within the specified time period. 

Thought it might be helpful to let you know the distribution schedule for charge statements by state as well as give you the time limit for contesting the charges.  Some times are very short so employers need to be on top of getting this done timely. 

Tammy Mullin

The "burden of proof" rests with the employer in cases involving a discharge. The employer must prove that the incident(s) which led to the former employee's discharge, amount to misconduct as defined by the applicable state statute. Misconduct can be established by the violation of a reasonable employer rule or expectation. The employer must show that the former employee's actions or omissions to act were willful and either actually harmed or had the real potential to have harmed the employer's business. Acts of inability, poor judgment, and good faith errors will generally not be sufficient to establish misconduct.

Witnesses should be prepared to provide the initial background information regarding the former employee's employment, describe the final incident that lead to the discharge, discuss prior disciplinary action and relevant company policy/procedure. Additionally, the witness must establish what impact or potential impact the former employee's action(s) had on the employer's business, i.e., monetary loss to the employer. Also, note that an isolated instance will generally be insufficient to establish misconduct. Verbal and written warnings that were given for the same reason as the discharge reason are important to show misconduct.

If the final incident is within the control of the employee or they could have prevented this final incident, then it is a case worthy of pursuing. However, if the final incident is beyond the employee's immediate control, then this may be a case which cannot be won. An example might be a discharge for tardiness - the final incident being when the employee's car broke down or they may have had to take their child to the hospital because of an emergency. These are situations the employee could not have prevented.

Tammy Mullin

When documenting reasons for separation there is the potential to mislabel certain performance issues as "unsatisfactory".  This could be perceived by the state to mean unable to perform and will likely result in benefits awarded to the claimant. State unemployment agencies put a specific meaning on the word "unsatisfactory." It is taken to mean "could not perform satisfactorily" or, in effect, "not qualified."

Unemployment benefits are designed to be paid to people out of work through no fault of their own. People who accept work with the good intentions of performing it, but who are incapable of performing up to company standards or who lack the training or experience to do so are paid unemployment when discharged for that reason.

The following is an excerpt from a hearing ruling detailing a definition of misconduct.

If a person is negligent, derelict in performing his/her duties, deliberately failing to follow procedures or take direction, while the word unsatisfactory may seem to apply, using it could lead the state agency into improperly thinking the person was discharged for inability to perform satisfactorily.

If you are discharging someone who you believe is qualified for the job (and/or who has demonstrated the ability to perform satisfactorily in the past) you should view it as a discharge "for cause" and avoid using the words "performance or "unsatisfactory."

If the reason is failure to follow known procedures, phrases like "deliberate failure to follow procedures" are appropriate. Negligence of duty can be labeled as such.

Documented and described properly, quite of few of these separations will lead to an appropriate disqualification from unemployment benefits. Improperly described and you may be paying unemployment benefits to someone who deliberately failed to perform the duties of the job.

One additional very important item, once you have clearly determined that an individual is simply not qualified for the job and unable to meet performance standards, from an unemployment standpoint, the individual should be let go as soon as possible since the longer they are employed, the higher your unemployment liability will be. Such reductions in liability, if significant enough, can actually either lower or protect you from increases in your unemployment taxes on all employees (or in the case of reimbursers, possibly eliminate the need for a direct reimbursement for benefit charges).

Tammy Mullin

TALX

We understand the uncertainty and difficulty our clients face when provisions lapse, so we are reviewing and monitoring the activity around the Tax Extender Act of 2009. On December 8, 2009, the tax extender bill, H.R. 4213 passed the house. The following incentives were included in the bill:

·         Empowerment Zones

·         Katrina WOTC

·         New Market Tax Credit

·         NY Liberty Zones

·         Renewal Communities

·         Tax Incentives for the District of Columbia

·         The Indian Employment Tax Credit

The Tax Extender Package is currently awaiting approval from the Senate. We are hopeful that the extender package will be extended retroactively and will be adopted by the end of the session.

Angela Lockman

The "burden of proof" rests with the former employee in cases involving a voluntary quit. The former employee must prove that he/she voluntarily quit with good cause as defined by the applicable state statutes in order to argue entitlement to unemployment benefits such as a substantial change in pay, working conditions, et cetera. Good cause is generally established when work-related conditions have substantially deteriorated or a situation exists that would force a reasonable person to leave his/her employment.

In these cases, the employer should be able to present facts where they have attempted to resolve the situation with the employee, i.e., alternatives that were available to the employee prior to the resignation.

Witnesses should be prepared to provide the initial background information regarding the former employee's employment, establish the reason(s) given for quitting, provide details of the events that caused the former employee to quit and, finally, state what attempts the former employee made to resolve the situation before quitting.

Tammy Mullin