Since the specifics of this rule (essentially replacing 1990 proposed rules to revise subparts D and I) are quite complex, employers that might be affected are encouraged to seek detailed explanations from OSHA, via its Web site.

The federal government’s point of view has merit, since it knows, for example, that it is not collecting a significant amount of Social Security taxes because too many employers are mistakenly or purposely classifying some workers as independent contractors. Because the Labor Department’s few thousand inspectors can’t review nine million workplaces, part of the philosophy behind the required compliance plans is essentially to ask employers to become extensions of the regulatory process.

According to federal officials and those that support the compliance plan mandate say that too many employers have be able to play a “catch-me-if-you-can” game. The Labor Department claims that the lack of scrutiny has caused many employers to bet against being caught and continue to violate various federal labor laws that protect employees’ wages; their health and safety in dangerous occupations, such as coalminers; and discriminatory practices.

Those on the other side of this issue, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, see the mandated compliance plans as another intrusion by the government into private businesses. Chamber officials and other supporters of a “hands-off” policy think this requirement will allow the government to micromanage any business that it chooses to monitor for compliance instead of focusing on regulating the labor laws.

Two years previously, a lower court ruled that the police chief had no legitimate reason to view those personal messages. The judge’s decision was based on the 4^th Amendment’s unreasonable-search language. Now, the case has proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court where the judges will be asked for the first time to determine if the right to privacy includes employees’ emails, cell phones and other personal communication devices used during work hours.

During the original case, before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the attorney representing the city of Orlando argued that it’s policy was distributed to all city employees, including the police officer. It states that employees’ pagers, computers, etc. could be monitored. The police officer’s attorney counter-argued that any employee expects some level of privacy when calling a family member, for example, even on a company’s phone system.

A broad ruling that would favor the rights of employers to monitor employees’ personal communications could affect most workplaces. The court could also focus on the specifics of the police officer’s case and decide that someone in his position (a SWAT officer) should not expect complete privacy, since it is routine for officers’ communications to be monitored and reviewed following the commitment of crimes to which they responded.

Despite the best of intentions to help the unemployed, business owners and the general economy, the HIRE Act may offer incentives that won’t result in more employers hiring more employees. According to one small-business owner, his decision to hire more workers is not dependent on what he characterized as a “little kickback” from the government. Even as a small-business owner, he clearly understands that labor is also a commodity, and is ruled by the law of supply-and-demand.

A spokesperson for a huge global company echoed that thinking when she also stated that the HIRE Act wouldn’t have much effect on the company’s hiring practices. She said the volume of work is what drives the need to hire more workers. She added that the company is much more likely to expand its workforce because of retirements and typical employee turnover.

Of course, the federal government’s best intentions also include additional information that must be provided by employers on a revised W-2 tax withholding form and the new W-11 form, which eligible employees must complete, so employers can claim the benefit.

Congressional members from both sides of the aisle voted for the increased benefits, since the unemployed must immediately spend all of that money on necessities, which in turn stimulates the economy.

The report (and opponents of added unemployment benefits) claim that when unemployed workers receive extended benefits, they cause the unemployment rate to remain high for a longer period of time. The thinking is that the unemployed will be more selective about the jobs they take because they know they have additional benefits. The report also concludes that this is why the current economy is growing, but not employment: the unemployed spend the benefits, but don’t take jobs they could.

The lobbyist agrees that the unemployed may be unemployed longer, but that situation only applies when unemployment is four to five percent. With the current double-digit unemployment rate, those seeking work need more time (and benefits) because there are many more unemployed competing for the few open jobs.

Private-industry workers’ costs averaged only $27.49 per hour. Wages and salaries were $19.45 per hour, benefits $8.05 per hour.

The 23-page Bureau of Labor Statistics report is available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.

“Positive weight in the source selection process is given to bidders based on the labor standards of their entire workforce,” states an administration document.

The standards would be measured by “whether the bidder pays a livable wage and provides quality, affordable health insurance; an employer-funded retirement plan; and paid sick days.”

Some have named this the “High Road Contracting Policy,” and claim it “will improve the service that the government receives and save taxpayer dollars because better wages will lead to higher productivity and product quality.”

Contractors would be required to adhere to wage standards greater than the current law. Supporters state that American workers (approximately two million worked on federal contracts in 2006) will experience an increase in the quality of their jobs.

David Madland, director of the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress, said that when so-called “low-road” contractors pay substandard wages and offer few benefits, employees require more government subsidies, such as for medical care and welfare benefits. According to Madland, the state of Maryland’s experience with a high-road policy has had only a negligible effect on business costs.

Those opposing the anticipated presidential executive order think it would raise employment costs and make federal contracting prohibitive for small businesses.

On a more political level, however, the opposition sees the proposal as a gift for organized labor’s support of President Obama and the Democrats. Specifically, the Republicans, who see the proposal as having a negative effect on business, contend that the Obama administration is helping organized labor because Congress didn’t pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have allowed workers to form unions by signing cards rather than by voting in a secret-ballot election.

Some industry experts and watchdog organizations think that similar regulations and legislation is coming from the Obama administration, and could change the way contractors do business—it seems that history will be the final arbiter.

Named the Protecting Employees and Retirees in Business Bankruptcies Act (S. 3033, H.R. 4677), the legislation would “ensure that back pay awarded through [the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act] damages would be given priority in the bankruptcy claims process.”

The Act would also limit bonuses that could be distributed when a company becomes bankrupt.

It is required that all employers complete an I-9 form for all employees within the first three days of employment. The new I-9 reduces the number of documents an employee may present to prove employment eligibility in the United States.

Five List A documents, which prove both identity and employment eligibility, were eliminated and can no longer be accepted by employers:

• Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560 or N-570);
• Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or N-570);
• Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-151);
• Unexpired Reentry Permit (Form I-327); and
• Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571).

Form I-766, the Employment Authorization Document, was added to List A.

A major change is in the instructions for Section 1 that the employee is required to fill out. The worker is no longer required to provide their Social Security number unless the employer participates in the USCIS Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification Program (E-Verify).

All previous versions of the I-9 form and Handbook for Employers are no longer valid and should not be used.

Employers must use the amended Form I-9, dated June 5, 2007, for all individuals hired on or after November 7, 2007. However, USCIS recognizes that employers should be afforded a period of time to transition to the amended Form I-9. The Department of Homeland Security will publish a Notice in the Federal Register announcing that it will not seek penalties against an employer for using a previous version of the Form I-9 during a 30-day transition period that begins on date of publication of the Notice.

After the transition period, employers who fail to use Form I-9 (Rev. 06/05/07)N may be subject to all applicable penalties. Employers do not need to complete new forms for existing employees, but must use the new forms for new hires or if an employee is required to re-verify employment eligibility.

The new I-9 form and the revised Handbook for Employers are available online at www.uscis.gov. Purchasers of Your Employee Handbook have already been sent the updated form and manual; future purchasers will receive it in their download package.

USERRA prohibits discrimination against past and present members of the uniformed services and establishes reemployment rights for service members who want to return to the jobs they held prior to service.

The new regulations explain how USERRA protects against discrimination and retaliation because of military service; prevents service members from suffering disadvantages due to performance of their military obligations, and affords them ample time to report back to jobs following completion of their service obligations.

A poster is available for use by employers to inform employees of their rights, benefits and obligations under USERRA. The notice, downloadable posters containing the notice, and the new regulations can be accessed at www.dol.gov/vets or on YourEmployeeHandbook.com.

More information can be found at www.dol.gov/elaws/userra.htm.