A few weeks ago, the Social Security Administration (SSA) issued its first batch of no-match letters to employers with the expectation that more letters will be sent out in the near future.  These were the first no-match letters to go out to employers since 2007.  The lack of letters over the last few years was the result of ongoing litigation related to the issuance of the no-match regulations that were ultimately withdrawn.  With an end to the litigation, the SSA no-match letters return. 

For those new to HR, the no-match letter is a tool used by the SSA to try and resolve discrepancies when an individual's name and social security number don't match.  The intendend purpose of the letter is for employers and employees to become aware of the problem and resolve it by correcting workplace records or working with the SSA. 

For employers receiving these letters, it is important to handle them with some care.  The receipt of a no-match letter is not intended in any way to signal to an employer that an employee is not authorized to work in the United States.  The no-match letter should set in motion a series of steps designed to confirm employer data being reported to SSA and/or the sending of an employee to visit the local SSA office to resolve any discrepancies.  The bottom line is that employers must balance between taking a course of action that is too aggressive yet ensuring the potential concerns raised by a no-match situation are not simply ignored. 

Information published by the Department of Justice on this topic can      Continue Reading...

Businesses may assume that once they hire a subcontractor to handle a specific task or project, all obligations or concerns regarding the subcontractor's employees are not their problem.  While this sounds good, this is absolutely incorrect.  There are a number of areas in which a business can be held responsible for the actions or inactions of its subcontractor.  One particular issue that is not well-known is responsibility for a subcontractor's unpaid wages under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA).  The KWPA places secondary responsiblity for unpaid wages on the entity hiring the subcontractor in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its employees.  The most-common application of this statutory rule is on a construction project where a general contractor hires a variety of subcontractors to perform smaller portions of the work.  If one of these subcontractors fails to pay its employees, the employees may make a claim against the general contractor for their unpaid wages.  While a construction industry example is easy to see, there are numerous other scenarios where a business enters into a contract to perform a service and subcontracts various parts of that obligation.  These types of arrangements would also fall within the scope of this provision in the KWPA.  For the specific statute click here.  

Yesterday Governor Brownback signed into law the Kansas Workers Compensation Reform Act.  This law, which will take effect on May 15, 2011, marks the most-significant overhaul of the Kansas workers comp system since 1993. 

What’s the most-outrageous mistake made by a job applicant you’ve interviewed?  Over 2,400 hiring managers were asked that question in a recent nationwide CareerBuilder survey.  Here are some of my favorite responses:

Last week the U.S. Department of Labor issued new FLSA regulations. The final rules, which become effective May 5, 2011, reflect changes necessary to update the regulations to comply with statutory changes or to replace outdated examples. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently penalized the Prince George's County school system for its failure to properly pay H-1B workers.  In the case of an H-1B worker, the employer must pay the employee at least the prevailing wage amount established for the position.  The prevailing wage system is designed to ensure that foreign labor is not used to lower the U.S. wage base in a given occupation.  While the announcement is unclear, the problematic issue for the school is likely to have been the requirement the H-1B worker pay some or all of the fees for the preparation of the H-1B application packages. 

Generally speaking, it can be permissible for the employer to require an employee to pay the legal fees associated with any H-1B filing so long as these costs do not effectively lower the employee's wage rate below the prevailing wage rate.  For purposes of compliance, H-1B employers should view the prevailing wage as the minimum wage for an H-1B employee.  In addition to the prevailing wage floor, employers with H-1B employees should also be mindful of how the H-1B employee's compensation compares to his/her peers in the job classification.  Dropping below one of these floors can create a backpay liability issue for an H-1B employer.  In addition to the attorneys' fees concerns, there is also a government filing fee cost associated with the H-1B program.  While a payment of the attorneys' fees amount can be permissible, employers are not permitted to require the employee to pay the government filing fees associated with the H-1B application process.  

For the      Continue Reading...

A new pilot program has been added to the E-Verify system to allow individuals to check themselves and correct any problems that might prevent them from being verified.  This feature is currently only available to individuals in Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Mississippi, and Virginia.  It is expected this self-check feature will be expanded and rolled out to individuals living in other states.  The addition of this capability seems to be an attempt to remedy the concern that the E-Verify system is prone to error and may cost authorized workers a job opportunity as workers will be able to check their own data and correct any problems prior to applying for employment.  

What does this mean for Kansas employers?  In the short-term, not much.  In the long-term, this appears to be one more step down the path to an eventual national requirement for all employers to use the E-Verify system.  One of the historical concerns with E-Verify is the potential error rate.  With the implementation of state laws in several states mandating use of E-Verify and the federal contractor requirement, the scope of participating employers has grown considerably.  This self-check option is a great way to address any concerns about employee fear of errors in the system.  When it is all said and done, don't be surprised if you start to hear talk of all employers being required to use E-Verify as part of the I-9 process. 

Today the Kansas House passed the revised version of HB 2134, the work comp bill we've been covering.  The bill now awaits action by Governor Brownback.  (The bill is summarized in our March 24 post.)