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

A surprising turn of events in Vermont, well, surprising to me at least.  I read today that legislators are proposing an additional payroll tax to help replenish the state's depleted unemployment trust fund.  The 0.2% surcharge would be collected from individuals making over $40,000 a year and bring an additional $100 million in new revenue for the fund over the next four years.

Seems like a pretty bold move that goes way outside the box of the traditional model of employers paying in and benefits getting paid out.  This is sure to cause some serious debate.  Quite possibly even a ruckus. 

It's interesting as there is an ongoing difference of opinion regarding who actually pays for unemployment insurance.  Most say the employer of course (since they write the check), but some say it is the actual worker who pays the insurance in the form of lower wages (if not for the tax, the employer would have paid them more).  Well, if this legislation is passed, at least in Vermont, there will be strong evidence on both sides of this running debate.

Tammy Mullin

In addition to figuring out where to get additional revenue, some states are starting to also look at how to adjust policy to cut down on the draws against the unemployment trust fund. 

Check out South Carolina where a "Senate proposal" would "give the agency the right to deny unemployment benefits to workers who are fired for illegal drug use.  Workers also could be denied benefits for gross misconduct, which includes reckless damage to employer property, employee theft, and criminal assault or battery against a fellow employee."

Claimants collecting who were fired for misconduct represented about "10 percent of total benefits [paid] between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009."

Tammy Mullin

In this economic climate it is no secret that reimbursers are looking for ways to cut unemployment costs. Some best practices to keep in mind include:

Send All Details at the Claim Level

Winning claims at the first level will save money since reimbursers do not automatically receive benefit credits if a decision is reversed at the hearing level. Hearings can take 4-6 weeks to get scheduled and a decision rendered. This means you would pay 4-6 weeks of benefits you might not get back.

For Schools: The Importance of Reasonable Assurance Letters

An overriding consideration in determining employees’ eligibility for UI benefits is whether or not they have “reasonable assurance” of returning to work in the next school term. We continue to recommend that the “reasonable assurance” be in written form. Having these letters distributed before the end of the school year can result in more favorable decisions and avoid the need for a hearing.

Continue to Manage Your Human Resources Wisely

Practices such as performing good reference checks before hiring and following an employee’s progress from the moment the person is hired is critical. See previous blog serious on The Hiring Process - "Part I - Reviewing the Job Application", "Part II - Test Skills" and "Part III - The Interview".

Provide Timely Information to the State 

An untimely response will result in loss of appeal rights and you being charged for benefits collected. Ensuring timeliness when contesting unemployment claims can save you money. There is usually only a 10-day timeframe to reply before benefits go through.

Proper Management of Layoffs

It is never a good time to lay someone off. Helping severed employees find another job through coaching or reviewing their resume is beneficial to the employee as well as the employer. The less time individuals remain unemployed the lower the employer’s cost will be.  See previous blog "What Should be the Focus of your Unemployment Cost Management Program".

Tammy Mullin 

An element of progressive discipline, warnings and corrective actions are an effective way of ensuring an employee understands what is expected of them. State agencies look for warnings, in most instances, to determine if the claimant was discharged for misconduct—a deliberate or willful violation of company rules.

It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that all employees are aware of company, rules policies and procedures.

Guidelines:

• When your company issues an employee handbook or rules, retain an acknowledgement of receipt in the employee’s file.
• Special policies and procedures should, if possible, be posted.
• Be consistent: enforce rules and policies uniformly
• Be specific and objective when you counsel employees. Avoid using general statements, e.g., “poor performance,” to describe willful or deliberate violations of rules within the employee’s control. Permit the employee to respond in writing.
• Note witnesses, dates, time, etc. of documented incidents
• Request employees to sign all warning notices. Witnesses to warnings are recommended. If the employee refuses to sign, write on the notice that the employee refused to sign, and ask the witness to sign his/her name next to the statement. Remember, signing a warning notice does not mean the employee is admitting to the offense; it is simply an acknowledgement of receipt.
• Follow up. If you warn a suspended employee, document what is expected and note any important timeframes.

Although written warnings are better, notes or verbal warnings are important if documented.

Tammy Mullin

The Senate this morning passed (70-to-28) the $15-billion jobs package offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., which includes payroll tax breaks, bond-financing for state and local infrastructure projects, a small-business expensing provision, and an extension of federal highway programs.

Angela Lockman

Employers know the use of progressive discipline helps an employee understand that a performance problem or opportunity for improvement exists and helps the employee overcome those performance problems and satisfy job expectations. It is most successful when it assists an individual to become an effectively performing member of the organization.

Failing that, progressive discipline enables the organization to fairly, and with substantial documentation, terminate the employment of employees who are ineffective and unwilling to improve. Organizations whose managers follow recognized documentation best practices are in a much better position to protest unwarranted unemployment claims.

There are five elements to all effective documentation of progressive discipline:

1. Date of the infraction

2. Details of the infraction  

3. Explanation of corrective action needed

4. Statement of next disciplinary steps  

5. Signature of the employee

Tammy Mullin

On February 22, 2010, the Senate approved (62-to-30 margin) a motion to proceed with the $15-billion jobs package offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., which focuses on the immediate effect of hiring. The Senate passage of Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (H.R. 2847) is an important step in the effort to put Americans back to work. The provisions of the bill include: a payroll tax holiday for certain new hires, an extension of the Build America Bonds program to existing tax credit bonds, an extension of highway authorizations, and a one-year extension of higher expensing thresholds.

On February 23, 2010, the Senate will convene at 10:00 AM. The Senate will then resume consideration of the post-cloture debate on the House Message to the Senate amendment of H. R. 2847 (Jobs for Main Street Act).  The Senate will recess from 12:30 – 2:15 for party caucuses. A final vote on the measure is expected within the next two days.

Following the vote Reid stated, by the end of February he would move to the remainder of the jobs bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and ranking member Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, that includes a package of tax extenders and other tax-related proposals to spur hiring and help stabilize the economy.

President Obama called the Senate vote "an important step forward" in job creation. The bill includes several of President Obama’s top priorities for job creation, including tax incentives for hiring and small business investment.

Angela Lockman

With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provisions set to expire, emergency unemployment benefits will end for millions of Americans. Senate action is required in order to extend the ARRA. Senator Reid has indicated that the Senate will take up the measure next week. With that in mind, the UI Coalition sent a letter to the members of the US Senate requesting that they consider the following:

• Extend the waiver of interest on loans to states to pay unemployment compensation through 2012.

• Waive the FUTA penalties on employers in states borrowing to pay unemployment benefits through 2011.

• Reduce the Federal Unemployment Tax.

• Provide $30 million in additional targeted administrative UI funding in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

These provisions are designed to reduce the costs of unemployment to employers and enable them to create jobs thus aiding in the country’s economic recovery.

A copy of the letter as well as a more detailed explanation of each provision is attached.

This issue has been around since the very early years of the unemployment insurance (UI) program in the United States: Where do you report an employee’s wages if the employee works in more than one state or in a different state than the employing company is located?

While in general, workers’ wages are reported to the state where the work is performed, it became clear early on that many employers had workers that crossed state lines and they wanted to avoid duplicate taxation of these wages. Therefore, an agreement was signed between the states providing a methodology known as “localization of work” to determine where wages should be reported. The US Dept of Labor developed model legislation that was passed into law in every state during the 1940’s. An agreement between Canada and the United States was signed in 1947 to include Canada in the localization of work agreement to avoid duplication of taxation when workers crossed the border.

To insure uniform interpretation of the localization of work provisions, the US Dept of Labor issued an Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 291 on July 1, 1952. I had the distinct pleasure, as Chief of Tax for the US Dept of Labor, of updating and re-releasing this information on May 10, 2004, as UIPL No. 20-04. This UIPL still serves as a guide to the business community, all states, and Canada for determining where wages should be reported.

In a nut shell, localization of work provisions should be applied in the following sequence in order to determine where wages are to be reported:

(1) Is the individual's service localized in this state or some other state?

(2) If his/her service is not localized in any state, does he/she perform some service in the state in which his/her base of operations is located?

(3) If the individual does not perform any service in the state in which his/her base of operations is located, does he/she perform any service in the state from which the service is directed and controlled?

(4) If the individual does not perform any service in the state from which his/her service is directed and controlled, does the individual perform any service in the state in which he/she lives?

For further explanation and examples, UIPL No. 20-04 may be found in its entirety by following the link below:

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=1565

Rett Hensley TALX Consultant