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!
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 WashingtonPost. 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.
Jeffrey W. Toppel – Phoenix, Arizona
Sean G. Hanagan – White Plains, New York
Less than two years after the enactment of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (“LAWA”), Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070). The Act requires law enforcement officials to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person that they believe to be an alien unlawfully present in the United States. The Governor’s decision has thrust Arizona into the spotlight of immigration reform debate.
The controversial statute has attracted both national and international attention since the April 23 signing and has led to daily protests at the Arizona State Capitol in downtown Phoenix. Public figures ranging from Los Angeles Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony to the Reverend Al Sharpton and Mexican President Felipe Calderon have spoken in opposition. Despite this, polls suggest that 70 percent of Arizona voters favor the law.
Widespread Concerns Regarding Racial Profiling
The most controversial provision of Senate Bill 1070 requires law enforcement officials to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of any person that they come into contact if they believe the person may be an alien unlawfully present in the country. Specifically, the statute provides, “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall when practicable, to determinate the immigration status of the person…”
Other controversial provisions in the statute include:
* Prohibiting state, city or county officials from limiting or restricting “the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” Under the statute, any Arizona resident may sue a public official or agency that adopts or implements a policy that so limits such laws’ enforcement. The provision is intended to prevent “sanctuary cities” that that adopt policies viewed as protecting undocumented aliens.
* Making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant present in Arizona by creating a state charge for “willful failure to complete or carry an alien-registration document.”
* Making it a crime for a person to “conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state … if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of the law.”
* Allowing a peace officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person “to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”
* Requiring a peace officer to remove and either immobilize or impound a vehicle if the officer determines that a person is “transporting or moving or attempting to transport or move” an alien in the furtherance of the illegal presence of an alien in the United States.
Provisions Impacting the Employment Relationship
Several provisions in the new statute will affect Arizona employers.
The statute makes it a crime for an occupant of a motor vehicle “that is stopped on the street, roadway or highway, to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location” if the vehicle blocks or impedes the normal flow of traffic. This is aimed at prohibiting hiring of day laborers who congregate at certain locations, such as home-improvement stores. This provision also makes it a crime for unlawful aliens to “apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.”
The Act amends the Legal Arizona Workers Act by adding a recordkeeping provision that requires employers to maintain E-Verify verifications for each employee hired after January 1, 2008 (LAWA’s effective date) for the duration of the employment or at least three years, whichever is longer. In addition, it adds a defense of entrapment for employers facing a claim that they either intentionally or knowingly hired an unauthorized alien.
Challenges to Senate Bill 1070 Expected
Many groups have stated that they are considering filing lawsuits to challenge the statute before it becomes effective 90 days after the close of the current legislative session (expected to end in early May). Civil rights groups have expressed concerns that the statute’s provision requiring law enforcement to check a person’s immigration status will lead to widespread abuse and “racial profiling” against members of Arizona’s Latino population.
Influential public officials at all levels also have expressed opposition to the statute and have indicated that a challenge to the statute is likely. In a speech made prior to the Act’s enactment, President Barack Obama called the statute “misguided” and said he has directed his administration to “closely monitor” the civil-rights implications of the statute. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (the former governor of Arizona who signed LAWA into effect two years ago) also has expressed opposition to the statute. It is possible that the Department of Justice may seek to challenge the constitutionality of the statute on civil rights grounds.
At the local level, Phoenix Mayor Gordon has come out in strong opposition to the statute and has indicated that he will seek approval from the Phoenix City Council to file a lawsuit to challenge the statute. Moreover, Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, who would be tasked with enforcing many of the Act’s provisions, expressed concerns, on civil rights grounds, about the statute in his attempt to convince the Governor to veto the bill.
Any lawsuit challenging the statute would likely argue that Arizona is impermissibly seeking to regulate in the field of immigration, a field traditionally left to the federal government. Any lawsuit also would challenge the likely civil-rights implications resulting from the statute’s “reasonable suspicion” provision. Jackson Lewis will closely monitor and report legal developments relating to the Act.
Looking Ahead
While a challenge to Senate Bill 1070 is likely before the Act becomes effective, Arizona employers, nevertheless, should prepare to comply with the statute.
Employers in Arizona should consider:
* Reviewing their compliance with the LAWA to ensure that they are using the E-Verify system to verify all new employees.
* Reviewing and, if necessary, modifying their record-retention policies to ensure they will be complying with the Act’s new recordkeeping requirement (employers must maintain E-Verify verifications for the duration of an employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer).
* Reviewing their Form I-9 procedures to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law. Under LAWA, an employer that complies in good faith with the federal I-9 requirements is entitled to an affirmative defense.
After months of inactivity under LAWA, it has been reported that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) resolved its first case under the statute against an employer who allegedly rehired an employee using fake identification after ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had determined the employee was an undocumented alien. MCAO may have initiated at least one other prosecution under LAWA. With a newly appointed Maricopa County Attorney taking office, it is not yet clear how aggressively the statute will be enforced in the Phoenix area.
Arizona businesses, particularly those in the hospitality industry, should prepare for the possibility of a boycott or other type of business disruption. Calls for a boycott of Arizona businesses have been widespread and have gained momentum. Democratic U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva of Arizona has called for a boycott of Arizona businesses, noting that a boycott brought about a change in state policy 20 years ago when Arizona refused to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a state holiday.
Officials in San Francisco have proposed that the City do no business with companies in Arizona. Moreover, just hours after the Governor announced her decision to sign Senate Bill 1070, the American Immigration Lawyers Association decided to move its planning 2010 conference out of Arizona to protest what it described as the “harshest anti-immigration bill passed in the U.S. in more than a decade.” Other groups may follow suit. At least one labor union, the Services Employee International Union (SEIU), also seems poised to use the enactment of Senate Bill 1070 in its organizing efforts in Arizona. The full extent of the economic impact will not be known for some time.
Finally, the enactment of Senate Bill 1070 has increased calls for the federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Two Senators — Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) — have outlined their vision and framework for immigration reform. (See Senators Schumer and Graham Release Immigration Reform Framework.) The pace of activity on immigration reform likely will increase significantly. Attorneys in Jackson Lewis’ Global Immigration practice group will continue to monitor developments at the federal level.
Jackson Lewis attorneys are also available to answer questions about Senate Bill 1070, compliance with its provisions, auditing your Form I-9 compliance, and participation in E-Verify.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Under the new health care legislation, experts say the first changes Americans with employer-based insurance will see is in their benefits. Companies don’t have to make any immediate tweaks to their plans, but they will have to incorporate a few of the federally mandated changes by open enrollment time late in 2010, said Tracy Watts, partner with employee benefits consulting firm Mercer.
The changes made this year will come into effect in 2011, with more phased in over the next few years until the law becomes fully implemented by 2018 or later. Some of the changes will increase costs for employers, she said. Consequently, companies could share more of that burden by charging employees higher premiums and deductibles.
So here’s what you can to expect in 2011.
Dependent coverage to age 26:
This is one of the most significant changes, said Watts.
Currently there are different laws in different states regarding the timeframe for dependent coverage. Typically employers provide coverage for dependents ’till age 22 or 23.
In 2011, employers will have to provide coverage for dependents of employees who don’t have access to other employer-based health care coverage ’till age 26 with the exception of a few states which mandate this coverage until age 28 or 29, she said.
Watts said this measure could raise costs for companies, depending how many workers they have with dependents this age.
"This measure goes into the ‘cost increase’ column for employers and could potentially result in higher premiums for employees overall," she said.
No lifetime dollar limits:
Many employer-based health insurance plans have lifetime maximum limits on insurance of $1 million or $2 million. The new law eliminates all lifetime caps, said Watts.
"This is a very good benefit for employees," said Watts. "In the event of a catastrophic accident or illness, employees no longer have to worry that their benefit will run out."
No reimbursement for over-the-counter drugs:
Currently, employees can get reimbursed for the money they use to buy over-the-counter drugs from their flexible spending accounts (FSA) or Health Savings Account (HSA) to buy over-the-counter medications.
These accounts typically enable individuals and families to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses not covered by their insurance plans with tax free dollars.
The new law removes reimbursements when the accounts are tapped for buying non-prescription drugs, said Watts.
Higher penalty for misusing Health Savings Accounts:
Under the new law, employees who use their HSA money for a non-qualified medical expense will face a higher penalty, said Watts.
"The most frequent example of a non-qualified expense is if you use your HSA money to buy a flatscreen TV," said Watts.
Report health coverage on W-2 forms:
Employers will have to report the value of an employee’s health care plan on W-2 forms.
"This is not the value of your claims but the value of the coverage you elected," said Watts.
Cap on Flexible Spending Account contributions:
Although this change does not kick in until 2013, the new law will limit employee contributions to FSAs to $2,500 a year.
These accounts enable individuals and families to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses not covered by their insurance plans with tax free dollars.
Many employers have their own caps on FSA contributions and the cap for federal employees is $5,000.
"This seems like a significant change but our surveys shows that the average amount put into an FSA is typically $1,500 a year," said Watts
I’m young. I’m inexperienced. I’m a slacker. I’m entitled. I have a short attention span. I can’t hold down a job.
At least, that’s how my elders see me – a member of Generation Y.
But that’s far from how I see the majority of my generation. We’re in a tough spot right now. Most of us who are lucky enough to have jobs don’t like those jobs and those who don’t are finding job searching impossible. Although we’re ready and willing to contribute, we’re faced with Baby Boomers who don’t understand us, and Generation X, who’s stuck between two generations and thinks we’re trying to take their jobs.
The Stereotypes
I keep coming across articles that try to define Gen Y as some sort of anti-work culture. Granted, most Gen Ys are pretty young and mostly inexperienced, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know what we’re doing or that we don’t have goals of our own. Sometimes I think the older generations forget that they had to start out somewhere, too.
There are a lot of stereotypes out there, everything from "we’re the smartest generation" to "we’re the laziest generation," all of which only make it easier to discriminate. The definitive line between where Gen X stops and Gen Y begins ranges anywhere from 1975 to 1985 through 2000.
I’m not saying there aren’t slackers among us. I know some of them firsthand. There are those who grew up having everything handed to them by their parents – Gen Xs or Baby Boomers who were able to make it and wanted their children to have the best of everything. These Gen Ys always have the newest material things, their parents probably paid for college and they may have even walked into their first job without even having to try, just because they knew the right people. But I don’t think that handful of people should define my generation. There are many of us who have always had to work hard for what we want.
Change (Or move over, old farts)
Most people, no matter what generation they’re a part of, are scared of change, and there’s no doubt society has changed during our time. Because of this, some older generations see Gen Ys as a threat. Gen Ys are used to having information at the tip of their fingers, and grew up with an array of rapidly changing technology, making them extremely adaptable.
Why Hire a Bunch of Entitled Slackers?
As far as the current recession, a similar scenario happened during the 1990s. The dot-com bust found many Baby Boomers laid off, putting Gen Xs in a similar position as Gen Y is today. However, after the bust was over and companies began to recover, they rebuilt their workforce with Gen Xs, resulting in an infusion of youth and new ideas. It’s very likely this recession will bring about the same fate for Gen Ys. And employers have a lot to gain from hiring us.
Not only do we focus on being true and transparent, we’re not afraid to share our ideas and tell upper management we think they’re wrong or that there might be an easier way to do something. Aside from our high values, Gen Y has higher collective SAT and ACT scores than previous generations and is able to do lots of things all at once. And while Baby Boomers and Gen Xs think our ability to multi-task is a curse, taking a five minute break to check your Facebook is no different than taking a five minute break to talk about your children, hang out in the break room or go have a cigarette.
"Millennials are going to change the face of business," Nick Armstrong, of PsychoticResumes.com, said. "Because we multi-task so well, I doubt the eight-hour work day will last much past the economic downturn. I doubt that the eight-hour shift in the office will last either. Personally, I lack the focus to sit in a dreary office, listening to my co-workers ruminate on whatever healthy food they brought in, hear Nosey Nancy gossip about everything and everyone, and spend half my day getting belittled by a patronizing, condescending, hypocritical managerial staff."
How Gen Y is Coping
Due to the old-fashioned, disappointing work style Baby Boomers and Gen Xs seem to be satisfied with, many Gen Ys are escaping by starting their own businesses. Many of us feel it’s more important to make a difference and share ideas than to be caged into the typical work style.
"I want to express my opinions and share my ideas," Armstrong said. "I’m vested in the success of the company. It’s a mortal offense to be filtered, unheard, unable to express my opinions. I go to work to be useful and valuable, to contribute ideas and work with my co-workers to make everyone’s ideas better."
Final Thoughts
I think people my age tend to live more in the now. We grew up facing the dot-com bust of the 90s, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and now have a grave economic recession to deal with. Because of those things, Gen Ys seem to be more concerned with where they are today and about doing something that will make an immediate difference than where they want to be 10 years from now. (Besides, nobody really knows the answer to that question).
We do want to save money and prepare for retirement, just as our previous generations have done, but there’s a more imminent feeling that now is the most important time, and everything else will fall into place. Just because we want to do something fulfilling – and it may take changing jobs 10 times to figure that out – doesn’t mean we’re slackers. We were taught to find something we love and do that for the rest of our lives. We’re taking that to heart – it just may take a little time.
As far as having a short attention span, maybe we do. But that doesn’t mean we can only focus on time-wasting activities like video games and texting. It does mean that we need to be challenged. That’s one Gen Y cliché I agree with. However, I don’t think wanting to be challenged is a negative trait.
I do think that any good boss should be able to recognize when an employee is not challenged enough or satisfied enough with their work and do something to change that. Give them another fresh assignment to work on.
We also don’t want work to be our whole lives. Sure, work is important, but there are other things in life, too. That’s why it’s important for us to do what we love and want to be doing, that way work doesn’t feel so much like work.
And last but not least, we do respect our elders, regardless of what they may say. The problem in their eyes seems to be that we only respect those who deserve it – those who have made a difference, whether that be in our lives or on a bigger scale. We’re also a lot less likely to respect people who have a preformed negative attitude toward us. People should remember that you have to give respect to earn it.
So if you can accept that things are changing, provide a little bit of a challenge and learn to respect us the way you want to be respected, then you can find a good Gen Y employee. If not, you’re most likely going to be faced with a scarce workforce as your Baby Boomers and Gen Xs retire and Generation Y moves forward without you.
You don’t rock all the time. No one does. No one is a rock star, superstar, world-changing artist all the time. In fact, it’s a self-defeating goal. You can’t do it.
No, but you might rock five minutes a day.
Five minutes to write a blog post that changes everything, or five minutes to deliver an act of generosity that changes someone. Five minutes to invent a great new feature, or five minutes to teach a groundbreaking skill in a way that no one ever thought of before. Five minutes to tell the truth (or hear the truth).
Five minutes a day you might do exceptional work, remarkable work, work that matters. Five minutes a day you might defeat the lizard brain long enough to stand up and make a difference.
And five minutes of rocking would be enough, because it would be five minutes more than just about anyone else.
Question: Should I do a background check before hiring an employee and if so, how do I do that?
Answer: No, it’s not required, but, yes, do some form of background check on potential employees to ensure you are getting a person who will be a good fit for the business.
The cost of hiring and training employees is too high not to at least call references, the easiest form of background check. That can be as simple as calling references and previous employers, checking criminal records or doing a full investigative consumer report. Care needs to be taken not to violate privacy rights, so it’s important to know the rules beforehand. Information on what is allowable and what is not can be found at www.privacyrights.org, www.business.gov/business-law/employment/hiring/pre-employment.html, or by contacting your business attorney.
Many companies use outside agencies for a thorough pre-employment background check. This is definitely an option, but be sure to check on the credibility of the agency. What experience does it have? What resources does it use? Is it a reputable business?
Here are some questions to ask the screening company:
• Do you follow Federal Credit Reporting Act and applicable state and federal laws?
• Will you provide guidance about the proper use of the screening information?
• Will you provide the proper forms and seek the required permission from job applicants?
• How will you investigate any inaccurate information or handle a complaint by a job applicant?
Due to the complexity of human resources issues, legal requirements, time needed to process payroll and the tax reporting requirements for employers, many small businesses choose to use an employee leasing agency, payroll processing company or temporary employment agency to handle hiring, background checks, payroll processing and tax reporting.
Hiring good employees is worth the effort to do some form of background check, even if you just call references and previous employers.
(Arlene M. Soto is the director of the Southwestern Business Development Center. To ask a question call 541-756-6445, e-mail asoto@socc.edu, or write 2455 Maple Leaf, North Bend, OR 97459. For more information, visit www.bizcenter.org.)
It raises significant questions in claim administrators’ minds as to the legitimacy of a workers comp claim.
It deters CBR’s ability to help the injured employee to the most beneficial degree.
The claim is far more likely to be litigated, thus increasing the cost of the claim dramatically.
Injuries should be reported immediately to CBR, even if it doesn’t appear medical treatment is necessary. If medical treatment is not required, the claim will not be reported to ICA.
What happens if an injured worker is assigned modified duty and refuses?
Contact CBR’s Injury Counselor (602-200-8500 x2045) immediately. A bona fide job offer will be sent via certified mail to the employee. Failure to comply will render the employee ineligible for compensation of lost wages. (Delay in notifying CBR of an employee’s non-compliance could result in significant negative consequences to your company’s workers comp rates.)
May I terminate an employee who is injured on the job?
It is not in the employer’s best interest to terminate a worker with an open workers comp claim. Once the employee is terminated, the employer has no control over whether or not the worker returns to work, thus the worker may conceivably sit home collecting compensation indefinitely (causing workers comp rates to sky rocket). As the employer at the time of the incident, you are liable for compensation of lost wages until the worker is released to full duty or begins working again.
Look at this interesting story I found on BLR.com…seems a little controversial to me???????
The recession has been difficult for most Americans. But has it affected men more than women? Recent statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggest so. Recently released statistics from BLS show that 78 percent of jobs lost during the recession were held by men, and women’s wages have risen by 1.2 percent more than men’s over the past 2 years.
I don’t know if you can say to any degree of certainty that either gender has done better or worse than the other during the recession, but in my opinion women have adapted better than men.
Why might that be? There are a number of inherent qualities that may make women better suited to handle the challenges of the recession:
1. Women are used to stress
First, many women, regardless of industry, work in "boys club"-type environments. They are used to dealing with the added stress that comes with feeling as though they have to constantly be working at a higher level than the men at their organizations. Second, women are used to multitasking. They know that, often, others measure the success of women based on how well they juggle their work and home lives.
2. Women are not defined solely by their jobs
Men tend to measure their self-worth by how much money they are making, their ability to provide for their families, and their position at work. Women, however, tend to define themselves by their relationships inside and outside work. Because of this, women aren’t taking as big a hit to the ego as men, and that is helping women to keep their heads up during the recession.
3. Women build strong support networks
Throughout history, women have had to unite in order to gain equal footing with men both inside and outside the workplace. Women have well-organized associations and other groups because we have to. It provides the strength in numbers we need to ensure we keep making progress toward complete equality. These groups have been very beneficial in the recession because women know exactly where to go for advice and information.
4. Women are wired to do business by "relationship"
Because women tend to be more empathetic than men, building strong relationships often comes easier to them. They can tap into a caring nature more easily than most men, which helps them relate to business partners, clients, and employees who are struggling during this recession. Relationships are key right now.
5. Women are not afraid to tighten their belts
For companies, the recession means reduced spending, and that can sometimes translate to pay cuts and benefit cuts for employees—practices that tend to affect men more negatively (at least in an emotional sense) than women.
6. Women lead by consensus
Where men might take on an "every man for himself" mentality during the recession, women will use their ability to lead by consensus to provide value to their organizations. They involve their people in finding ways to cut costs, constantly remind them that they are important—a necessity when companies cannot offer raises or other rewards—and, in general, just try to be part of the solution.
7. Women are not afraid to seek out advice
It might be a stereotype, but the idea that men won’t stop to ask for directions when they are lost seems to hold true during a recession. Women simply seem more willing to seek out advice during economic hard times. Women are collaborative. They are more willing to take a let’s-get-through-this-together mentality. They don’t look at needing help as a sign of weakness.
8. Women know how to build the bench
Women know that investing in their employees or direct reports does not mean paying them more or promising big bonuses in the future. It means giving them the support they need, helping them find pride in their work, and giving them positive feedback and encouragement. All of these elements come together to help women build a strong bench—a team that is motivated to get the job done even when it takes more work for less reward.
Bottom line: Women make great leaders. And that is really shining through during the recession.
I recently found these three news stories where companies had to deal with government agencies because they made detrimental mistakes when it came to their employees and hiring practices.
Don’t let any of this happen to you…
"Employers may face more scrutiny over pay practices in 2010, thanks to a new report claiming that wage-and-hour violations are running rampant in the workplace."
"Starting this month, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") is commencing a National Research Project to collect information on employment tax compliance issues."
WSJ.COM, WASHINGTON — Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has spent her first few months in office focusing on handing out $46 billion in stimulus money. Now, her department is adding staff and signaling it will soon begin putting in practice the more assertive regulation of business she promised early in her tenure. Ms. Solis has begun hiring 670 new investigators to enforce labor regulations
There will be 150 investigators added in the Wage and Hour division to enforce wage rules and child-labor laws. Another 100 staff will be added to ensure contractors on stimulus projects are in compliance with applicable laws. The additions will boost the division’s staff by more than one-third.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration, which helps to regulate private retirement, health and other benefit plans covering 150 million Americans, is adding 75 staffers to conduct nearly 600 more criminal and civil investigations.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently formed a task force to design an enforcement program for severe violators. OSHA will conduct an intensive examination of an employer’s inspection history and any systematic problems would trigger additional, mandatory inspections.
"Employers, especially smaller ones, are really looking for help in terms of understanding the requirements and making sure they’re doing things right," said Marc Freedman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s executive director of labor law policy. Instead, the department’s "rhetoric" on workplace safety "seems to be heavy-handed enforcement and generation of more regulations," he said. Mr. Obama’s nominee to head OSHA, David Michaels, is an epidemiologist and research professor at George Washington University known for studies on the health effects of occupational exposure to toxic chemicals.
According to azcentral.com
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office arrested nine employees of a Scottsdale Mexican restaurant Friday on suspicion of identity theft and forgery.
Sheriff’s officers executed a search warrant at Arriba Mexican Grill, 15236 N. Pima Road, following a one-year investigation into suspected immigration-related violations.
Nine employees, including the store manager who was found hiding in the bathroom, were booked into jail at 11 a.m., Sheriff Joe Arpaio said.
The Sheriff’s Office has been investigating the restaurant for more than a year after a former employee tipped the office, Arpaio said. The former employee told investigators that several employees admitted to living and working in the state illegally.
According to HLR.com
McLane Co., Inc., has agreed to pay $1,559,316 in back wages to 570 current and former retail merchandising specialists after the Department of Labor accused the company of misclassifying the workers as exempt employees.
The Department of Labor said that McLane Co., a wholesale distributor of food and grocery products, erroneously regarded retail merchandising specialists as outside sales employees exempt from FLSA coverage. The department also accused the company of failing to keep records of hours worked.
The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $5.85 an hour for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 per week, unless otherwise exempt. The minimum wage will increase to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008, and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Under the law, employers also must maintain accurate time and payroll records.
According to BLR.com
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has published a proposed rule addressing the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) defense under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
The agency is soliciting comments from the public by Monday, April 19, 2010.
The proposed rule follows a March 31, 2008, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on disparate impact under the ADEA. In addition to requesting comments on its substance, the prior NPRM asked whether the EEOC should provide more information on the meaning of the RFOA defense. Most commenter’s supported addressing the issue and, accordingly, the EEOC is publishing a new NPRM on RFOA. The NPRM has been coordinated with other federal agencies and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The proposed rule explains that the RFOA defense applies only if the challenged practice is not based on age and that a neutral practice that disproportionately affects older workers can be justified only by showing that the practice is objectively reasonable when viewed from the perspective of a reasonable employer under like circumstances. The proposed rule sets forth non-exhaustive lists of factors relevant to determining whether a factor is “reasonable” and “other than age.”
What if this had been you??? What if you had never known these laws? Your company could be ruined forever. Using a PEO is much more vital than you think. Let us do all of the messy work for you…so you never have to get involved in the first place…
A 401k audit is most likely going to become part of your future this year. A recent United States Supreme Court ruling has paved the way for retirement plan participants to sue the sponsors of retirement plans for losses incurred if any fiduciary misconduct or mismanagement can be shown. In order for companies to protect themselves from such litigation, a 401K audit is going to have to be carried out, and the estimated cost of such audits are running about $15,000. This is a considerable expense, but the risk of a lawsuit could be so much greater. Can you afford that risk???
The best way to avoid exposure is to discuss with CBR the advantage of shifting the risk and liability for your 401K over to CBR and completely removing yourself from the risk of getting sued. How is this possible? It is possible through the Multiple Employer Plan, or MEP. The MEP allows many employers to have their own plan, administered by CBR without the risks. The CBR MEP has features that protect our client companies from traditional fiduciary and plan trustee liabilities. If your current 401(K) plan is out of compliance, employees are able to pierce the corporate veil and go after the personal assets of the plan sponsor-usually the business owner.
I also saw this recent survey from BLR.com:
"A survey of compensation and HR professionals indicates that 80% of employers have maintained their matching contributions to employee 401(k) plans throughout the recession. What’s more, of the organizations that suspended their match, half say they will consider reinstating it this year. "
Loading ...
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. 
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.
(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Call us:
1 (888) 700-8512
