When my father-in-law was asked how things were going for him he would often answer the “same old sixteen.”   To him things were the same and were not changing.  Things were actually changing for him, but it just seemed the same to him.  All things were giving the appearance of being exactly as before.

Recently, I attended the Workforce HR Tech Week virtual conference and connected with several sessions.  The last session of the conference was of most interest to me because it highlighted the results of Towers-Watson’s 2010 HR Service Delivery Survey. If you want to experience this session or any other from the HR Tech Week program, you can follow the link below to access the archived event.  Please note that you will need to register to gain access to any of the sessions.

http://www.workforce.com/hrtechweek-ondemand

I must admit I experienced the “same old sixteen” feeling as I listened to the 2010 results.  Of the HR initiatives undertaken in the last 18 months 68% of the respondents indicated that “Reengineered Key HR Processes” was where they invested their time.  This area tied for first place as respondents reflected on what they had been doing over the last 18 months.

In my 25+ years of being engaged in HR service delivery, reengineering the important HR processes always seems to be near or at the top of the list and taking the most time.  This same old sixteen outcome is similar to the results of organizations wanting to move in recent years to web-enabled self-service and now web 2.0 capabilities.  I believe that this protracted effect of HR technology investments is still driven by top management’s real view of the value propositions presented.  The result; many organizations are never able to get it done.  Being successful means spending more time understanding the real value, really believing in it and then communicating the passion.  This approach makes the difference in moving beyond the “same old sixteen.”

I-9/E-Verify

By: Dave Fowler

Finding Form I-9 and E-Verify manuals on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) used to be a little hit-and-miss. The best way to find the current version of such manuals was to us the search feature of the USCIS web site at www.uscis.gov. At the APA's GATF Immigration Subcommittee meeting held in D.C. in May, a suggestion was made to the Verification Division responsible for E-Verify that all manuals be posted on one page. It appears this suggestion has already been implemented and we should all than E-Verify for this. You can now find Form I-9 and E-Verify manuals on a single web page. That's the good news!

The not so good news is that USCIS has fallen short in providing specific requirements for determining the hire date, employment date, rehire date, or whatever term you use to refer to the date the employee began work on the Form I-9. Part of this has to do with there not being specific requirements in the Form I-9 law for determining what this date should. As you know, E-Verify will not accept a future date as the hire date. The issue here is that there is a law governing the Form I-9, but E-Verify is still a pilot program. It just doesn't look good for a pilot program to be defining requrirements for a law, does it? Therefore, USCIS has issued guidance on their web site re: What's the Hire Date. Unfortunately, the guidance misses the mark and makes no sense for either the Form I-9 or E-Verify.

You can create an E-Verify case for a new employee as soon as they have accepted an offer of employment and completed Form I-9. The Form I-9 law does not prohibit the hire date in Section 2 or the rehire date in Section 3 from being a future date. How a signer can attest to a future event is beyond me since there is no guarantee the employee will even show up much less actually start on the date entered on Form I-9. Anyway, even if you put a future hire date on the Form I-9 you can still create an E-Verify case for the employee as soon as Form I-9 is completed. This sets up an interesting situation since you must enter the hire date into E-Verify and E-Verify does not accept a hire date that is in the future. So, what do you do? Why you are instructed to lie to E-Verify, of couse. If the Form I-9 contains a hire date that is in the future, you should enter today's date as the hire date in E-Verify. If the employee's hire date is today or a date prior to today, enter the hire date on the Form I-9 in E-Verify.

Gee, what's the purpose of entering a date in E-Verify that is not on the Form I-9? USCIS claims it has to do with the three-day rule for E-Verify purposes. What do you think employers are really going to do if they realize that the Monitoring & Compliance group within the USCIS Verification Division is looking for E-Verify cases created by non-FAR (non-federal contractors) beyond the three-day period? Right, the employer is simply going to enter today's date as the hire date to avoid submitting the new hire to E-Verify after the three-day period. E-Verify won't know that the case was created late because E-Verify can't verify the hire date.

So, rather than clarifying what is an acceptable hire date and rehire date on Form I-9, USCIS has opted to create more confusion, ask employers to enter a date into E-Verify that is not on the Form I-9, and make it even more difficult for the Monitoring & Compliance group to identify employers who intentionally create E-Verify cases late or use E-Verify for pre-screening, which is prohibited.

Wouldn't it make more sense for USCIS to simply define the hire and rehire dates as the earlier of the employee's first day of work for pay or the date Section 2 (or Section 3) of the Form I-9 is signed?

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:

1. 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.
2. Documentation of when the claimant was warned about the attendance.  Take note of verbal warnings and issue written warnings at counseling sessions.
3. 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)
4. 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

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 

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

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

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

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

Tammy Mullin

Tammy Mullin