Policies for Telecommuting

 The Benefits and Drawbacks of Telecommuting

Telecommuting has quickly become a hot trend in the business world today.  It cuts costs and makes our virtual world seem more connected. Some businesses are solely virtual and do not even have an actual office. If this is something new to you and a tactic you might want to try, having the  proper HR practices put into place is vital to its effectiveness.

According to Keith Regan of the Dayton Business Journal " A good telecommuting policy covers everything from hours that an employee working remotely is expected to be available ( and when those hours will take place) to details on how technological connections will be made-whether workers will have company computers or supply their own and how they will access company data- and even details on the work spaces employees are expected to maintain at home. "

Prudential Financial Inc. ran a pilot program for their telecommuting system. Now 60% of their employees practice telecommuting successfully.

If a company can successfully implement this type of work environment it can have many benefits. These include a good retention and recruitment tool and keeping productivity going in case of emergencies or pandemics. One of the drawback that has been reported is social interactions between employees in the office are limited and at times non existent. To avoid this a company could offer part time telecommuting. There are risks associated with isolated employees.

If you decide to go through with implementing this vastly popular work tool, make sure  the program has clear guideline so can avoid problems. For tips on how to adjust and amend your HR policies to accommodate telecommuting or any other HR concerns call CBR at 602 200 8500.

Posted May 24th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Other | | 0 Comments

Two HR issues you can’t Ignore

By Scott Buchanan

Significant liabilities reside with the HR side of any business, yet the HR area is often overlooked or operates with few resources. This article will present the current view of 2 significant HR threats/challenges.

Employee versus Independent Contractor

Yes, you have certainly heard about this one before, but did you know that the Obama administration plans to hire 100 more enforcement personnel to focus on this issue and that the IRS is planning to audit approximately 6,000 companies to examine compliance with the law?

When a worker is properly classified as an employee, the employer must pay social security tax of 6.20% and Medicare tax of 1.45% of gross wages. The employer is generally obligated to also pay workers’ compensation insurance and federal and state unemployment tax (generally 3.5% for a new employer in Florida). Assuming that the workers’ comp premiums are 3% of gross wages, the total burden rate is 14.15% of gross wages, before applying the cost of employee benefits.  It’s no wonder that so many employers are attempting to classify workers as independent contractors, especially in our current economic environment. However, the consequences of improper classification can be significant and potentially retroactive for the employer.

The initial determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor comes down to whether the company directs and controls the worker. If the answer is yes, then most likely that worker is an employee. The IRS developed a 20 factor “test” to assist companies in determining the proper classification of a worker, which includes such topics as the level of instruction and training provided by the company, the flexibility or lack of flexibility of the worker’s schedule, and a company’s demand for full-time work. The IRS also allows a company or a worker to file Form SS-8 for an IRS determination of worker classification. The IRS believes that workers often file an SS-8 to challenge their own treatment as an independent contractor by a company.  This action has costly ramifications.

If a regulatory agency reclassifies an independent contractor as an employee, a number of issues and questions are presented. At a minimum, the IRS will charge an employer for back taxes, including the associated interest and penalties. The interest and penalties can be significant, especially since the taxes should have been paid on a quarterly basis in a prior year or years. If the reclassification determination is retroactive to a prior year, the question comes up regarding whether the employee should have been covered by the company health and retirement plans. What if the employee experienced a significant illness while previously classified as an independent contractor and was therefore not covered by the company’s health insurance plan? Can that employee now file a claim for reimbursement?  What about the employer’s matching contributions in the company’s 401(k) plan that the employee would have been entitled to receive in prior years?

Unemployment Claim Administration

Many employers were shocked when they opened their 2010 unemployment rate notice in December and found out that their company was maximum-rated at 5.40%. Even though recent legislation in Tallahassee has temporarily reduced some employers’ rates, most employers still experienced a noticeable increase over 2009 rates after the revised rate notices were prepared by the state.

Proper unemployment claims administration can achieve significant cost savings and should focus on the following three areas: 1) the actual claim that may result when an employee is terminated, 2) the information on the quarterly benefit statements and 3) the information on the annual rate notice.

The unemployment system was established to provide a cushion to those employees who are laid off through no fault of their own. Claims resulting from a lay-off or business closing generally cannot be challenged; however, claims resulting from termination for cause generally may be challenged by an employer, especially if the employer maintains good documentation and has a witness available to testify at a hearing.  For instance, if an employee has violated company policy and such violation was witnessed by another employee, the employer should consider challenging any claim made by the terminated employee for unemployment benefits. The employer may also want to challenge similar claims even if a witness is not available if strong documentation is available.  Most of the initial hearings are now handled by phone, so the employer’s representatives generally don’t even need to leave their office to participate in the hearing. Each claim approved by the state increases the employer’s unemployment tax rate since the system is experience rated. For instance, a 40 employee company with a 5.40% unemployment tax rate will pay additional taxes of $12,320 versus that same company with a 1% rate. Accordingly, it is in the best interest of the employer to review each claim.

One of the easiest ways to potentially lower an employer’s rate is to review the quarterly benefit notices to determine if each claim charged to an employer’s account was actually from a former employee of that employer. Erroneous claims from employees of other employers can mistakenly be charged to your account and increase your tax rate. Performing this review each quarter is a best practice for any employer.

The third step all employers should take is to simply check the annual rate notice which typically arrives in December of each year and includes the tax rate which will become effective on January 1 of the next year. Another best practice is to confirm all the data contained in the notice and to recalculate the tax rate shown. If errors were noted on the quarterly benefit statements pursuant to step 2 above, were those errors corrected before the annual rate notice was prepared? If an error is noted on the annual rate notice, an employer typically has about 10 calendar days to notify the state of such error, so this review should begin as soon as the notice is received.

How does an employer prevent or mitigate these HR threats/challenges?  Consider using a Professional Employer Organization (PEO).  PEOs provide comprehensive HR outsourcing including payroll, human resources, benefits administration and risk management.  The PEO you choose should be active in its industry association, the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations (www.napeo.org), and accredited by the Employer Services Assurance Corporation (ESAC) (www.esacorp.org).  ESAC provides independent financial and compliance assurances for covered clients and employees through surety bonds in the unlikely event of a failure of an accredited PEO, a similar concept as the FDIC for banks.  The PEO you choose should have staff that is accredited by the American Payroll Association (APA) as well as Professionals in Human Resources (PHR) accredited by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).  Alternatively, both the APA and SHRM offer payroll and human resource training classes. Another option is to establish a relationship with an HR consulting firm.  Consulting engagements are flexible and can be tailored to your specific needs.

These few suggestions should help to keep your HR department, no matter how large or small, on the path to compliance. 
 

Posted May 17th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Human Resources | | 0 Comments

Opposition to Arizona Immigration Law: It’s About Pro-Diversity

Posted on May 12, 2010 by Robert C. Seiger

While the business community has largely attempted to stay out of the debate surrounding Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070), professional basketball team Phoenix Suns jumps to the center of the debate over the Bill with the team’s decision to wear “Los Suns” jerseys during its playoff game against the San Antonio Spurs on Cinco de Mayo. Suns’ owner, Robert Sarver, announced his disagreement with the Bill, describing it as “mean-spirited.” All of the Sun’s players were reportedly in favor of the decision to wear the jerseys.

Sarver was quoted as saying, “I thought we need to go on record that we honor our diversity in our team, in the NBA, and we need to show support for that. As for the political part of that, that’s my statement." The Suns currently have three foreign-born players on the team.

Groups opposing the Bill have looked to sports teams and leagues to influence the discussion. Some have called on Major League Baseball to move its 2011 All-Star game from Phoenix – just as the Super Bowl was moved 20 years ago when Arizona refused to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a state holiday. Recent efforts have prompted Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to write ESPN on responding to the sports boycott requests, which she labeled as “misguided.”

Sports in America have become increasingly international, with players coming from around the globe. In fact, it is international players that dominate the roster of some of our major professional sports teams. The National Hockey League, for example, is made up of 80 percent of players who were born and raised outside of the United States. On the University level, a significant number of our colleges and universities actively seek international talent to gain a competitive edge. While these players may initially come to the United States either as a student-athlete or on a P-visa (a visa designated by immigration as a visa for professional athletes), these same athletes often seek permanent residence or citizenship to remain in the United States at the conclusion of their careers. As a result, we may see professional athletes and their teams play a significant role in shaping the immigration debate.

Posted May 12th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Immigration | | 0 Comments

Immigration Webinar! Sign Up Now!

AZ Immigration Webinar In the days since Governor Jan Brewer signed the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (Senate Bill 1070) into law, the media coverage concerning the statute and its impact on Arizona has been continuous.  However, this coverage has failed to adequately address the impact that the Bill will have on Arizona employers.  During this webinar, CBR and Jackson Lewis, LLP will do all of the following: Analyze and explain the key provisions of Bill. Address the impact that the Bill will have on Arizona employers. Discuss the various legal challenges to the Bill, which seek to invalidate the Bill before it becomes effective. Provide an overview of steps employers can take to prepare to comply with the Bill. SB 1070 Immigration Webinar: With Immigration experts live from Washington DC with Victor X. Cerda, Partner, Washington DC Region Office, Jackson Lewis LLP and Jeffrey W. Toppel, Attorney, Phoenix, Jackson Lewis LLP Date and time TBD Bring all of your questions and comments regarding the topic! Register Now for the Webinar Sponsored by Creative Business Resources Hosted by Jackson Lewis LLP Presenters: Jeffrey W. Toppel is an associate in Jackson Lewis LLP’s Phoenix office.  Mr. Toppel represents employers in a wide range of employment-related disputes, including wrongful termination and discrimination claims before various state and federal governmental agencies, as well as in Arizona state and federal courts.  Mr. Toppel also represents parties in restrictive covenant and trade secret litigation. In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Toppel regularly advises employers on issues that arise in the workplace, including compliance with state and federal immigration laws affecting the workplace.  Mr. Toppel often drafts employment policies, handbooks, and contracts.  Mr. Toppel earned his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law with a certificate in labor and employment law, and a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.  Mr. Toppel is active in the State Bar of Arizona’s Employment and Labor Law Section, serving on its CLE Committee and as former editor of the Section’s Newsletter.  In addition, Mr. Toppel serves as the Secretary/Treasury on the Board of Directors of the Maricopa County Bar Association’s Employment Law Section.  Victor X. Cerda is an immigration Partner in the Washington, D.C. Region office of Jackson Lewis LLP, and a nationally recognized leader in representing the employer community on complex immigration enforcement issues. He focuses his practice exclusively on advising, counseling, and litigating on behalf of corporations, individuals, and overseas clients on immigration and visa processes. His areas of focus include employer worksite enforcement, I-9 compliance audits, immigrant and non-immigrant visas, entertainment visas, and immigration court removal proceedings. Mr. Cerda has represented and counseled foreign governments, current and former Heads of State, Fortune 500 companies, executives and business owners, members of the motion picture, recording, and professional sports industry, and individuals facing complex immigration matters. Mr. Cerda has successfully counseled companies in navigating through ICE I-9 audits and worksite investigations, defended individuals in removal proceedings, and addressed security issues in the visa process. In addition, Mr. Cerda frequently provides expert commentary on immigration and homeland security issues for national media, including FOX, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. In 1995, Mr. Cerda began his legal career with the U.S. Department of Justice representing the United States in hundreds of immigration bond and removal hearings. On September 11, 2001, Mr. Cerda was appointed Counsel and Acting Chief of Staff for the legacy-INS. He had primary responsibility for many of the Nation’s post-9/11 immigration efforts and legal reforms. In March 2003, Mr. Cerda became the Counsel to the Assistant Secretary and Acting Chief of Staff for the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Mr. Cerda provided legal, policy, and operational oversight over immigration investigations, detention and removals, worksite enforcement, and high-profile deportation cases, including national security cases. He represented ICE in White House and interagency decision-making, and testified before Congress on immigration enforcement issues on numerous occasions. In 2004, he became the Acting General Counsel for ICE, managing 600 attorneys nationwide and formulating ICE legal positions on removal cases, worksite enforcement, and national immigration issues. He concluded his government career as the Acting Director of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) where he managed DHS’ detention and removal operations and managed more than over 4,000 employees, including more than 2,500 sworn federal law enforcement officers. As DRO Director, he reorganized DRO’s Headquarters and Field Offices, expanded ICE’s fugitive operations mission, deported a then-record number of individuals, implemented a national Alternatives to Detention Program, and began implementing the Criminal Alien Program.

Posted May 7th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Immigration | | 0 Comments