A federal judge in Arizona blocked the implementation of several key provisions of Arizona's controversial new immigration law.  This temporary blockage allows for more hearings and legal arguments to take place in the coming months by delaying (and maybe eliminating) the Arizona law. 

One thing I noticed in the days leading up to the effective date of the Arizona law last week was the increase in rallies and demonstrations.  With these demonstrations, the public and political attention paid to immigration issues is bound to grow. At the end of the day, the blockage (or non-blockage if it turns out that way down the road) isn't really the issue.  The Arizona law brings to the forefront the issue of immigration reform versus illegal immigration.  There is a growing perception the federal government is unable or unwilling to act to prevent illegal immigration.  At the same time, the country's economic struggles have resulted in more negative attention on employers and more calls for stronger employer sanctions for those employing illegal workers. 

The anti-immigrant messages focused on the loss of jobs for U.S. citizens has a tendency to catch the attention of local and state politicians.  As a result, there have been attempts in by a number of state legislatures to pass varying forms of immigration-related state laws.  Most of these efforts have been met with court challenges, like this most recent version in Arizona.  At the root of the legal wrangling is whether federal law preempts any attempts by the states to enact laws in this area. 

At the end of the day, the state legislatures and      Continue Reading...

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently issued a final rule making a number of minor revisions to the regulations governing the I-9 process used by employers to document newly hired employees' eligibility to work in the United States.  The issuance of the final rule incorporates with some slight modifications the provisions of an interim rule issued in 2006.  The highlights are as follows:

1.  A language clarification was added to make clear that employers have three business days to complete the I-9 process as opposed to three calendar days.

2.  The interim rule allowed employers to use either a paper or electronic retention system and the the final rules allows paper, electronic, or some combination of a paper and electronic system.

3.  The final rule allows employers to maintain a separate I-9 file or to store I-9 documents within the files containing the employees' other personnel documents.

4.  The final rule relaxed the audit trail requirements for electronic storage systems requiring only an audit trail for record creation, modification, or deletion.  In essence, a viewing of the I-9 document does not need to be recorded by the electronic storage system.

5.  The interim rule required employers to provide employees with a printed receipt showing the record each time it is modified.  This requirement was relaxed to allow employers to only provide a printed receipt upon the request of an employee.

While the final rule made a few other changes, the ones listed above are the high points.  For those interested in reading the final rule, it can be found      Continue Reading...

Earlier this week, Shirley Sherrod resigned her job with the U.S. Department of Agriculture after a video from a speech she gave at an NAACP event in March surfaced on the Internet. The edited clip gives the impression that Sherrod, who is African American, admits to refusing to help a white farmer because of his race. The video created a media frenzy, as Sherrod’s remarks were condemned by everyone from Fox News to the NAACP. Government officials quickly pressed her to resign.

One of the new realities for employers is the increased risk of a visit from an investigator working for the government.  These visits can come at any time, without warning, and may be conducted by any number of government agencies.  The typical visit for an employer is likely to be a wage and hour audit or an OSHA safety inspection.  While these (and any other agency visit) inspections are in widely varying areas, there are some common themes for employers to consider.  The worst time to prepare a workplace for an inspection/audit is when the inspector shows up at your door.  Here are a few quick thoughts should your workplace receive an unwanted visitor from the government:

• Plan ahead:  The time to develop a game plan for an inspection is well in advance of the actual investigator's visit.  Responding to an inspection in "crisis mode" is highly likely to lead to mistakes or oversights.  The ultimate outcome is almost certainly not going to be as favorable to the Company as a situation in which a well-conceived plan is in place.
• Communicate the Plan:  Make sure all management team members all the way down to the lowest level of management understands the Company's plan of action should an investigator arrive.  There is nothing worse than failing to implement a well-planned strategy because the individual meeting with the inspector doesn't know the strategy. 
• Have a Core Team:  A group of individuals on the management team should be designated to handle the Company response to the arrival of any government investigator.  This group should be intimately familiar with the response strategy and      Continue Reading...