2010/2011/2012 Human Resource Business Plans Survey Report Comparison

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:57:01 -0500

Compiled by The HR Group, Inc.

Summary

Analysis of three years of Human Resource Business Plans Surveys (2010, 2011 and 2012), which were conducted in November 2009, November 2010 and December 2012, brings certain possible trends to light, including an increase in hiring employees and an interesting decline in healthcare costs as a percentage of payroll.

View the 2010 - 2012 Survey Comparison Report

View the 2012 Survey Report for Non-Profit Organizations

View the 2012 Survey Report for For-Profit Organizations

View the 2012 Survey Report for Governmental Organizations

Bulletin Boards Update

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:33:47 -0500

Pre-Employment Assessments: Misuse Can Have Dire Consequences

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:34:58 -0500

by HR Group Staff Writers

The OFCCP (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs) announced last September that it is filing suit against Leprino Foods, the largest producer of mozzarella and whey products to the Farm Services Agency with contracts totaling 5 million dollars. The suit seeks back pay and interest for at least 270 class members and job offers for at least 17 of the original applicants and asks for cancellation of the company's existing federal contracts as well as debarment from future contracts unless and until the violations are resolved and the company rectifies its inequitable employment procedures.

At issue is a pre-employment screening tool Leprino Foods uses called WorkKeys. WorkKeys is a job skills assessment that measures abilities in Applied Mathematics (from simple addition and subtraction to calculating the volume of 3-dimensional solids), Locating Information (from simple to very complex graphics interpretations), and Reading for Information (from simple instructions to legal documents with complex sentence structures). Leprino claims that these skills are essential for on-call laborers in order to perform entry-level tasks such as inspecting products, monitoring equipment, and maintaining sanitation at the facility.

The OFCCP collected data from a 22-month period and discovered that Leprino's worker selection rate based on this assessment was 49% for minority applicants as compared to 72% for non-minority applicants. OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu said, "Leprino Foods' hiring process simply doesn't pass the sniff test. When workers are denied employment because of factors that have nothing to do with their ability to perform the job, something is not right. Our message to the company is clear: Correct your discriminatory practices and make restitution to the victims or lose your lucrative federal contracts."

If your company uses pre-employment assessment tools, please be sure you are using them in a way that were intended or designed to be used. The DOL has issued guidelines to follow when using tests. Click here to read the guidelines.

If you have any concerns, we encourage you to contact our office at (336) 292-1911 and we will be happy to discuss them with you.

What's the Big Deal About Diversity?

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:27:39 -0400

By David Moff, CEO, The HR Group, Inc.

Diversity is an important consideration for all businesses. The HR Group has partnered with many organizations, such as Mecklenburg County; NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources; Davidson County; and Samet Corporation with their Diversity and Inclusion efforts. Governor Perdue has even proclaimed September as NC Diversity Month (we have included the proclamation at the end of this article).

However, most of the Diversity and Inclusion work that The HR Group does generates little or no profit. We have been holding quarterly Community Diversity forums for the past 3 years and contributed all proceeds to various local non-profit organizations. On Sept 16, we will have our Second Diversity Leadership Conference at The Empire Room.

Why would a for-profit company do this? Why does any business expend so much of its efforts promoting this whole idea of Diversity and Inclusion? Part of understanding the answer to those questions is to understand the personal journey. I think we will agree that much of our beliefs and belief systems are a combination of all of our life experiences. We have all been shaped by our past. Here are a few of my experiences that have shaped my personal passions.

At age 10, our next door neighbor sat in our cozy den and announced to my mother that I would go to Hell if I did not accept Jesus as my savior. As a young impressionable Jewish kid, this seemed quite off the charts. I had lots of friends that did not believe this way. I knew them to be decent people and I did not think they were destined for Hell.

At age 12, on a trip to my grandfather’s beach house at Carolina Beach, we were refused Curb service at a local restaurant simply because there was a black woman in the car with the seven of us. It was a big family car with 3 in the front and 4 in the back!

At age 14, I was banned to the school hallway with Connie, my Catholic friend, as the New Testament Bible was being taught in the public school room in the small Eastern North Carolina where I was born and raised.

At age 16, when the Ku Klux Klan, marched down Main Street in their white sheets espousing the rhetoric that attacked anyone and everyone who was not exactly like them.

At age 17, when my friends tied up Jimmy on the playground monkey bars and pulled his pants down. They called Jimmy a fag. I don’t know if he was Gay or not but most of us thought he was a bit "sissy and queer." What I did know was that Jimmy was a good student, always willing to pitch in on any project and that we sat together often at lunch. I could not understand why my “friends” were doing this to my friend Jimmy.

At age 19, in college, my fraternity was the continuous attack of broken windows and fires in the yard simply because many in the fraternity were Jewish. By the way, this was at UNC-Chapel Hill in the late 60's.

At age 24, I went to work in the Personnel office of a textile company. I was trained that the blacks were to be hired for the Warehouse and lower paying jobs, while the whites were to be hired for the higher paying jobs in the Weave room and Inspections departments.

At age 27, I was asked to join the local Status of Women Commission and began to learn the workplace challenges women were having in terms of opportunities and pay disparities.

At age 30, when we started hiring people on work release and parole to discover that many of them were really victims of their circumstances and when given the chance became productive members of the workforce.

At age 38, when my son entered and won a speech contest with the topic, Johnny is an Atheist and taught me that not everyone prays to a G-d like we did.

At age 40, as President of the local synagogue, I learned that there are so many ways to pray or not to pray, that we should be respectful of everyone’s right to find spirituality wherever that may be.

At age 42, when the VP of Sales said “women can’t do this job.” Ten years later the sales force was 25% female and sales were at a record pace.

At age 43, when my youngest son came out to us as Gay. We loved him even more. He was the same person the day before and is a wonderful and brilliant attorney today. How can anyone think he should be a second class citizen and not entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else—“All men [and women] are created equal”.

At age 55, when my now business partner, Patsy Wiggins, introduced me to her two deaf sons – both productive and contributing members of their workplaces. Plus Patsy and I have become model business partners, despite the fact that we come from diverse religious background – she a Southern Baptist and I, a Conservative Jew. We have a deep respect for each other.

And today, we have two employees working with The HR Group that have had lifelong challenges. One born with Spina bifada and the other with Cerebral Palsy and a pronounced stutter. They are both adding great value to our company.

Patsy Wiggins and I both grew up in small Southern towns – she in South Carolina and I in North Carolina in the 50s and 60s. We witnessed first hand the discrimination and abuse of people who were considered different – race, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender, disabilities and more. We both learned that each and every individual is special and that we should all learn to find ways to respect, admire and find the best in each and every person. We both shutter at the rhetoric of those individuals (politicians in particular) who demean and reject those that are not like them.

Far too often, diversity is thought of only in racial terms. While this is a part of the discussion, it is only one part. The discussion has to include anyone who has ever been marginalized or demeaned by other individuals or by a group of people.

The business case for diversity has plenty of data to support the business imperative. However, we believe that the more we can do to educate and inform others about why Diversity and Inclusion is not only the right thing to do but also is the way that any human should treat another human, then the better we will leave this world when we are no longer here.

We invite you to join us in our journey.

Avoid Surprise Costs in Incentive Plans

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:47:17 -0400

OSHA and Distracted Driving - Is Your Company at Risk?

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:22:31 -0400

DOL Creates Timesheet "App" - How Good are Your Records?

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:24:44 -0400

Walgreens: A Model for Disability Inclusion

Fri, 06 May 2011 10:26:45 -0400

Mike Summers promoted to VP, Recruiting and Business Development

Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:05:34 -0500

The HR Group, Inc. announced that Mike Summers has been promoted to Vice President, Recruiting and Business Development. Mike's 15+ years of experience in sales, sales management and executive recruiting position him well to guide our efforts in these areas. His strategic vision and "client first" focus is what makes him the right candidate to lead business development for the HRG recruiting network.

Good News for Employers in Social Network Ruling

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:23:36 -0500

February 25, 2011 by Tim Gould

This article appeared in HR Morning.com

Employers can put limits on what employees can post on social media sites, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling.

The decision provides some balance for the National Labor Relations Board's charge that a company violated labor laws after firing an employee who posted negative comments about her supervisor on Facebook.

That case was settled in the employee's favor before it got to the hearing stage. And it made a lot of employers nervous about just how far they could go to set limits on employees' use of social network sites.

Photos on Facebook

The earlier case, heard in federal appeals court in Georgia, involved a probationary firefighter in Savannnah who posted photos of herself in uniform on her MySpace page.

Problem was, she also posted revealing photos of herself, including at least one in which she appeared to be nude.

An anonymous tipster let Savannah Fire Department officials know that the woman's postings might conflict with the way the department wished to be portrayed.

Her superiors decided to give her an oral reprimand, the mildest step in the department's progressive discipline process.

When confronted, however, the woman became "defensive and combative," claiming she'd been singled out - other male firefighters had posted photos related to the department. But she refused to name them.

She was fired for insubordination.

The woman sued, claiming gender discrimination. That claim was dismissed.

But here's the part that's of real interest to employers:

The court confirmed that an employee can be fired for violating an employer's policies on photos posted on a public website.

Crafting your policy

So where do you go from here? Here's some solid advice from attorney Tommy Eden, writing on the Alabama HR Law blog:

An employer's social media policy should clearly define the limitations on employees' work-related use of social media channels. Areas to cover:

Require employees to identify their association with the employer whenever an employee is using social media to comment upon the employer's products or services
Unless an employee's blogging or online postings are officially sanctioned and reviewed by the employer, the employee should be required to use conspicuous disclaimers that his or her views do not represent the views of the employer
Set specific rules on the use of photographs and names of co-employees or customers, and
Remind employees of the employer's right to monitor their social media postings and other online activities for compliance with the employer's policies.

Eden offers one word of caution: Make sure your policy doesn't restrict employees' right to engage in "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act - in other words, you can't stifle your workers' rights to discuss workplace issues.

The Georgia case is Marshall v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. For a look at the full decision, go here.

Should Your Company be Concerned About Union Organizing?

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:42:53 -0500

by H. Graham Dail, M.Ed., CHCM

Consultant, The HR Group, Inc.

Many of us on the labor side of the HR business have been closely following NLRB activity since the last presidential election. First, we were concerned about Congress passing the EFCA. After all, EFCA, the bill that would enshrine the principal of majority signup based on card check and labor's # 1 priority for the last congress, died in obscurity and without ever reaching the Senate floor.

All of us breathed a sigh of relief - at least we wouldn't have to worry about that onerous bill. Unfortunately, our relief was very premature.

Even without EFCA, we must be even more concerned about this particular National Labor Relations Board than any other Board in decades.

Why is this Board so dangerous?

Many legal scholars believe that the NLRB has the authority to enact procedural changes that would, among other things:

Drastically shorten the time frame for holding elections;
Eliminate the cumbersome pre-election procedures that allow employers to dispute who is eligible to vote;
Require employers to turn over employee names, addresses, etc. in any union organizing drive;
Require equal access to both workers and the workplace for unions during their campaigns.

Traditionally, the Board has not exercised its rule making authority broadly, but their reluctance to make policy through "rules" rather than case decisions is likely to change.

Democrats Wilma Leibman, Craig Becker and Mark Pearce are likely to drive this change. They are not "middle of the road", pro-business Democrats. Each of them has a very pro-organizing background and agenda.

Leibman, the current Board Chair formerly with the Brick layers and Teamsters, is a long time hero for organized labor based on her eloquent dissents from numerous anti-labor decisions issued by the prior Bush Board. Pearce is a long-term advocate of labor. According to the Wall Street Journal, Becker, however, is labor's "secret weapon". He most recently served as Associate General Counsel for the SEIU and AFL-CIO. He has argued in writing that employers "should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representation".

Some of the decisions the Board is likely to overturn includes redefining the definition of "supervisor" in a way that will effectively limit their ability to support the company and may even enable them to join unions, allow unions access to company email systems for solicitation and organizing, restrict the company's right to file lawsuits against labor unions, and increase the penalties on companies that violate their workers legal rights to organize.

We have already seen some of these activist decisions, including a recent decision where the Board is attempting to limit an employers' right to discipline employees from venting against the company on Facebook. In this case, the Board faulted the employers' policy that prohibited employees from making "disparaging" or "discriminatory" comments when discussing the company, their superiors or co-workers, and effectively expanded workers' rights by calling use of personal web sites "protected concerted activity". Other decisions change the "salting" rules, "bannering" and many other anti-business decisions.

Why is the Board taking such an "anti-business" position in an economy that continues to be soft?

There is no doubt that this Board is a strong advocate for employees' rights to organize. A careful review of organizing results in the past few years tells us why and also sheds some light as to union concerns.

First, the total number of elections declined 60% over the 1997-2009 period, from 3,261 to 1,304.

Second, the total number of employees voting annually also declined during the same period from a high of 234,182 in 1999 to a low of 69,832 in 2009, a decrease of 69%.

Third, during the same period, the total number of elections won by labor to certify one union in favor of union representation was 54.3% and elections involving multiple unions 85.4%.

Clearly, unions are doing quite well when representative elections are held. It is apparent, though, that labor continues to press hard for a card check method of deciding representation rather than going through the cost and uncertainty of an election.... And this Board is just as clearly supporting this position as aggressively as possible.

Many advocates believe that some reform is essential to the process and many of the worst pro-business features need to change, but this Board could completely overhaul the system and tilt the playing field significantly to support union organizing.

What do we need to do to avoid union organizing attempts? It is obvious that first line supervisors are the key to remaining union free. While there are a number of reasons employees choose to be represented by a union, the primary reason employees support union organizing is based on the way they are treated by their supervisor.

To avoid union organizing, we recommend the following:

1. Ensure that your company has fair and equitable policies that are uniformly enforced and hold supervisors accountable for the way they treat their associates;

2. Provide supervisor training to maintain respect in the workplace;

3. Provide employee complaint procedure and find ways to listen to employees;

4. Include your company's position on unions in your handbook and make your position clear to them;

5. Train your supervisors to look for early signs of union activity;

6. Identify any potential minority or gender issues.

Even with these tips, there is no guarantee that we can avoid a change in rules regulating union organizing campaigns. We can, however, proactively work on our employee relations policies to eliminate the likelihood that our employees will support organizing attempts. Waiting until the last minute will make it increasingly difficult to "keep the wolves from the door". It's time to be proactive, not reactive and treat employees fairly and effectively. This will help us ensure that we do never get to the election phase.

After all, we can't lose an election that is never scheduled...

How to Handle Presenteeism at Work

Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:09:19 -0400

By Wendy Bradley, Intern with The HR Group, Inc.

With cold and flu season coming on it is time to discuss an issue that is not commonly discussed in most work places - Presenteeism. This is not a commonly known term in most circles so first let's define it. Presenteeism is defined by Commerce Clearing House Incorporated, a business tax law company, as "a new term used by human resource professionals to describe circumstances in which employees come to work even though they are ill, posing potential problems of contagion and lower productivity."

Research shows that Presenteeism is anywhere from two to four times as costly to employers as its most commonly known counterpart, Absenteeism. It is not thought about as often though because most people feel that as long as they have shown up and contributed to something then they have been productive. They do not consider, when they come to work ill or on medication and cannot think clearly or concentrate effectively, that they are not being as productive as they could be, which costs the company money.

It's not just sick employees who are coming to work when they shouldn't. According to a recent YouGov Survey of 2250 employees commissioned by Lancaster University's Center for Organizational Health and Well Being, more employees, healthy ones included, are racking up hours and putting in face time at work so they can appear to be working harder in order to secure their positions in an insecure time. The effect of the recession is fear of losing their job if they do not seem committed or to work harder than others. However it is not quantity of work but quality and productivity that count.

Companies need to review their policies to ensure that their current attendance policy, work from home policy (if they have one), FMLA and other leave of absence policies are up to date and supportive of employees who need to stay home when ill. If they need to be updated now would be the time to update them to ensure compliance of FMLA regulations. With today's technology and all of the work from home capability of the modern office worker, having a sick employee stay home should not be as hard on the office as it has been in the past. Even if a worker is needed for meetings, there are now, webinars and teleconferences that would allow the worker to contribute without passing on anything contagious.

When a worker must be absent from work, another issue that could become a problem is documentation. Illnesses such as cold or flu may not be covered as a serious health condition. However, influenza may be considered a "serious health condition" if certain criteria are met. It is best to have clear, written policies to ensure fair and equal treatment, without regard to any discriminatory reasons.

In short the problem of Presenteeism is not just a company or employee issue, it has implications on both sides. However there are ways to deal with this issue if both sides are willing to be flexible and take steps to protect one another.

Employees

Know your bodies signals of oncoming illness
Be sure to use good hygiene practices of washing your hands often, covering your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze.
Use a sanitizer and keep your hands away from your face as much as possible.
Realize that trying to work through an illness tends to only prolong the amount of time required to get over it.

Employers

Be sure that your attendance policy is up to date, and coordinated with FMLA regulations
If possible offer employees who feel under the weather the opportunity to work from home so that they can rest when needed or some other flexible solution that will allow the worker the ability to feel secure enough in their position to take the time off to get better.
Offer wellness programs or free vaccinations for employees to cut down on the number of affected workers.

The 4 Most Common (and Costly) Wage/Hour Mistakes

Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:42:45 -0400

By Stephen D. Bruce, PHR
Editor, HR Daily Advisor

Wage and hour suits are getting technical, says attorney Laura Innes, and that's all the more reason to focus in on your wage hour practices to be sure you're acting within the law. In an exclusive interview with the HR Daily Advisor, Innes shared tips for the most common mistakes she sees.

Innes, who spoke on wage/hour challenges at the National Employment Law Update in Las Vegas, is a shareholder with the Simpson, Garrity, Innes, and Jacuzzi law firm in South San Francisco, California.

Mistake #1-Failure to have a good system in place

Many employers are lax or casual about their recording and timekeeping, and either don't have much of a system for keeping records or don't make careful use of the system they do have, says Innes.

That's going to cause expensive problems down the road, she says. It's the employer's burden to keep the records. If there are no records or the records aren't clear, then the court is going presume that the employee's recollections are correct.

Even if that "recollection" is way off, it's very hard to rebut without records, Innes says.

Mistake #2-Failure to properly record hours worked

Recording hours worked isn't hard, but more and more this is a "huge problem" in class litigation, she says. One of the most common failures is not paying for preliminary and postliminary activities. If you're requiring people to come in early or stay late for cleaning, prepping machines, meetings, or other necessary activities, and you're not paying them for that time, that's likely a problem.

Mistake #3-Falling down on technical issues

There's a trend toward suits focused on technical issues of wage and hour, says Innes. For example, take rounding. You can round, but you have to have a clear policy, and you have to be consistent, and you have to make sure you round fairly-you can't always round in favor of the employer, Innes says.

Mistake #4-Failure to calculate overtime correctly

One of the most common problems is failing to include all applicable income in the "regular rate" before calculating overtime amounts. You have to include non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, and other payments to arrive at the regular rate on which you calculate the overtime bonus, says Innes.

Talking Politics at Work

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:16:21 -0400

How to Handle Medical Marijuana at Work

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:35:45 -0400

News Alert: HR Group Affiliate Honored with Diversity Award

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:57:05 -0400

Greensboro Day School honored trustee Lenora Billings-Harris with the 2010 Dr. Judith R. Thompson Award. The Thompson Award recognizes a student, group of students, parent, faculty or staff member who has enhanced human relations within the Greensboro Day School community. Billings-Harris is an internationally recognized speaker, multicultural diversity expert, and author.

Upon receiving this award, Billings-Harris said, "I am deeply honored and humbled to receive this prestigious award. I am also encouraged by Greensboro Day School's continuing commitment to diversity, inclusion and equity."

Billings-Harris is the founder and president of Excel Development Systems, Inc. and a Diversity Consultant with The HR Group, Inc. She has served in the human resources management area for CIGNA Corp. and General Motors. She is past-president of Win-Win Resolutions, Inc. and the National Speakers Association. She has served on the GDS Board of Trustees for three years, and for the last two she has been chair of the School's Diversity Committee. This year, she generously offered many sessions of leadership training in the area of inclusion and diversity for the GDS Parents' Association and other independent school leaders from throughout the state.

The Dr. Judith R. Thompson Award was created in 1998 to preserve the memory and the work of Dr. Thompson, GDS former parent and Bennett College professor. Award recipients have demonstrated a strong passion and commitment to ensuring that GDS is and always will be a welcoming community that understands, respects and celebrates differences. Through thoughtful planning and deliberate action, recipients have made a direct impact on diversity and inclusion planning and education at GDS.

Health Care Reform: Employer Requirements at a Glance

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:41:05 -0400

By Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Online staff

Landmark legislation making major changes to health care insurance practices in the United States was enacted in March 2010. The law affects employers and HR professionals in a variety of ways, many of which are discussed briefly below. An interactive timeline that displays the effective dates of these provisions and includes links to detailed information will appear on the SHRM Health Care Reform Resources Page at www.shrm.org/healthcare.

Mandated Benefits: Beginning six months after the law's enactment, all existing health insurance plans must:

Prohibit lifetime limits.
Prohibit rescissions.
Restrict annual limits.
Include limitations on excessive waiting periods.
Include a requirement to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26; before 2014, this requirement is limited to non-dependent children who do not have an employer offer of coverage.

Beginning in 2014, group health plans must prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions and must prohibit annual limits.
Health Care Exchanges: The law requires states to create and maintain health care "exchanges" in which health insurance providers compete for customers on equal terms. The exchanges will be open to anyone without employer-provided coverage who wants to purchase a health insurance plan. If a state does not create an exchange, the federal government will create one for it.

Employer Penalty for Not Offering Coverage: The law will not require employers to offer health insurance; however, beginning in 2014, employers with more than 50 full-time employees that do not offer coverage will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time equivalent employee for all full-time employees in excess of 30 if even one employee receives a federal government subsidy and purchases coverage in an exchange.

Employer Penalty for Unaffordable Coverage: If an employee opts out of an employer plan because coverage is "unaffordable"-that is, if the premium exceeds 9.5 percent of family income-the employer must pay a $3,000 penalty for each full-time employee who receives a government subsidy and purchases coverage through an exchange.

Employer Penalty for Low-Value Plans: Employer health care coverage must have an actuarial value of at least 60 percent. If it does not, penalties will be assessed.

No Penalty for Waiting Periods: Employers will not be required to pay a penalty for employees during a waiting period that is required before an employee can enroll in an employer-provided health insurance plan. Beginning in 2014, however, a waiting period cannot exceed 90 days.

Employer-Provided Free Choice Vouchers: Employers that offer coverage must provide a free choice voucher to employees with incomes less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level whose share of the premium exceeds 8 percent but is less than 9.8 percent of their income and who choose to enroll in a plan in the exchange. The voucher amount must be equal to what the employer would have paid to provide coverage to the employee under the employer's plan. Employers providing free choice vouchers will not be subject to penalties for employees that receive premium credits in the exchange.

Automatic Enrollment Procedure: The law will require employers with more than 200 employees to enroll employees automatically into health insurance plans offered by the employer, allowing for an employee opt-out. The law is silent as to the effective date of this requirement.

Restrictions on Cafeteria Plans: The law caps flexible spending account (FSA) contributions at $2,500 and excludes over-the-counter medications without a doctor's prescription as reimbursable expenses under FSAs, health reimbursement accounts, medical spending accounts (MSA) and health savings accounts (HSA). Penalties on nonmedical HSA and MSA distributions are increased to 20 percent.

Incentives for Wellness: The law allows employers to offer premium discounts and other financial incentives for up to 30 percent of the total premium to individuals who satisfy a health standard. It includes provisions designed to ensure that discriminatory practices do not occur. The secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to issue regulations to allow financial incentives up to 50 percent. The law provides for grants for up to five years to small employers that establish wellness programs.

Tax on High-Value Plans: Beginning in 2018, there will be a 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies and plan administrators for group health coverage that exceeds a threshold of $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for families, not counting stand-alone dental and vision plans. For retirees above age 55 and for plans that cover employees in high-risk professions, the thresholds are $11,850 for single coverage and $30,950 for families. The tax will apply to the amount of the premium that is in excess of the threshold. Beginning in 2019, the thresholds will be indexed to the rate of general inflation plus 1 percentage point.

Required W-2 Reporting: Beginning in 2011, employers will be required to report the value of employees' health benefits on W-2 forms.
Long-Term-Care Enrollment Procedures: The law creates a national social insurance program that provides limited long-term-care coverage for active employees through the workplace. All premium costs can be charged to employees. Beginning in 2011, employers must have in place automatic enrollment procedures that allow workers to opt out or procedures that allow workers to initiate enrollment.

Breaks for Nursing Mothers: A provision in the law amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers, with some exceptions, to furnish "reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child" for one year after the child's birth. It requires employers to provide a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public, that may be used by an employee to express breast milk.

HR Group President, Wiggins, named Woman Extraordinaire

Thu, 27 May 2010 09:36:10 -0400

Triad Business Leader Magazine recently named Patsy Wiggins a Woman Extraordinaire in the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina.

Patsy is the President and COO of the HR Group, a company that provides customized human resources solutions and consultancy on various HR issues that include recruiting and interviewing, sourcing benefits, compensation systems, safety inspections, employee handbook development, training and development, and outplacement services. Wiggins, who co-founded the company in 2002, has driven the company to become a leader in HR excellence with a steadily growing client base that is further expanding into South Carolina and Virginia. Wiggins accrued an extensive industry background by leading HR departments for financial institutions and manufacturing companies before founding The HR Group. In addition to mentoring her own staff, Wiggins has coached many young people on career decisions, including interns at The HR Group. A graduate of Guilford College, Wiggins holds the Senior Professional in Human Resources designation and is involved in many HR related professional organizations, such as the HR Management Association of Greensboro and the Society for Human Resource Management. She also donates her time and energy to such community organizations as the Guilford County Substance Abuse Coalition, the Mayor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities and Communication Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

SHRM Supports New Civil Rights Center

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:51:29 -0400

Be Prepared: Department of Labor Becoming More Aggressive

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:00:42 -0400

Be Prepared: Department of Labor Becoming More Aggressive
by Gary Roscoe, Regional Manager, The HR Group, Inc.

When you think about the risks to your company's bottom line, what comes to mind? Injuries to your workers or others? Property damage? Negligence or even criminal activity? All valid, to be sure. But there's another area most contractors don't think about too often: the risk of being found in violation of the many laws covered by the Department of Labor.

Some laws are well known and usually adhered to, like reporting an on-the-job injury. But many others are less familiar. For instance, do you keep the medical information on your employees in separate files, and keep those files in a separate file cabinet from other employee records? If not, and it was discovered in an audit, you would be subject to a fine of $10,000.

Likewise, do you keep timecards for at least one year, and the files on terminated employees for seven years after the end of employment? If not, and discovered, you could once again be writing a check to the government.

You may be thinking "That could be serious, but what are the odds they'll ever do an audit on me... right?"

Hilda Solis, our new Secretary of Labor has been aggressively moving to boost enforcement of labor laws throughout the country, including recently hiring hundreds of new investigators to scrutinize business records and protect employees whose wages or overtime may have been underpaid. And trust me, if you think ten grand is a lot to pay for not having separate employee files, you'll blanch at the price for not paying your folks correctly.

The executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business' small business center said, "our members are concerned that the Department [of Labor] is shifting to a "gotcha" enforcement approach," and she's probably right. But that's not going to stop the DOL from acting as they see fit. It is up to you, the business owner or manager, to be aware of the new reality and respond accordingly. Simply put, you need to be, or become, legally compliant. If you aren't, the costs could be painful at least, disastrous at worst.

What can you do? Get guidance from a friendly source. Have someone familiar with labor law compliance do an audit of your records, your documents, and all things associated with your people. Listen to their advice and act appropriately. The time and cost of becoming compliant with the law will be far less painful than what you'll go through with the government. The process of settling with the Department of Labor will be long, painful and very expensive. It will be a drain on your bottom line that no small or mid-size company can afford.

Becoming and staying compliant isn't something you can put off. The DOL has a new sheriff in town; she has the laws on her side and she's aggressive about enforcing them. Don't become an unnecessary notch on her belt. Protect your company, don't pay needless fines, and keep the money you've worked so hard to earn.

Recent News