April 2010 Newsletter

HR CONSULTING TRAINING HANDBOOKS AUDITS SURVEYS COMPENSATION LABOR NEGOTIATIONS

APRIL 2010

888.625.7332888.625.7332

>President Obama Signs Stage 1 of Federal Health Care Reform Into Law

>Not All Sick Leave Plans Are Created Equal - Does Kin Care Apply To Your Plan?

>I-9 Form Audits Await Employers In 5 States

>SDEA President’s Message: “Change”

And More...

COLUMNISTS

Jennifer Jacobus, PHR-CA Jessica Zaldivar, PHR

SDEA PRESIDENT

Ed Fairhurst

SDEA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Rufino AutusAutus Financial Group

Terry Elrod

Juli JacobsonSan Diego Blood Bank

Stacey McKibbenActionCOACH

Melanie PotterWalter Anderson Nursery

Mike ScaccoALSCO, Inc.

Andy SilvermanCRES Insurance

Darby VorcePacific Safety Council

SDEA Counsel

Mike DalyDaly Law Firm

Honorary Life MemberTom Murch

DESIGNwww.ChabotDesigns.com

ADVERTISING AND ARTICLE SUBMISSION INFO

This newsletter is published monthly by the San Diego Employers Association.

We welcome the submission of articles by our members on topics of interest related to HR. Date for submission of materials and advertising is the 15th of the month prior to publication.

If you are interested in submitting an article please email it to: [email protected].

If you are interested in advertising rates please send an email to: [email protected].

SDEA is a not-for-profit employer’s association that pro-vides HR advice and consulting to its members in an ef-fort to promote and maintain employer/employee rela-tionships. We are not attorneys and do not render legal advice. Please contact your company’s legal counsel if you need legal advice on any issue. If you do not have an attorney with employment and/or labor relations ex-perience, we would be happy to provide you with refer-rals.

888.625.733212255 PARKWAY CENTRE DR. POWAY, CA 92064

www.sdea.com • 888.625.7332 • San Diego Employers Association 1

IN THIS MONTH04.2010

>FEATURES

2 President Obama Signs Stage 1 ofFederal Health Care Reform Into Law

4 Press Release 3-17-10Administaff To Pay $115,000 For Religious Bias

5 Not All Sick Leave Plans Are CreatedEqual - Does Kin Care Apply To Your Plan?

5 Negotiations

6 I-9 Form Audits Await Employers In 5 States

6 SDEA President’s Message: “Change”

7 Office Romances

7 SDEA’s Group Purchasing Organization

9 Religion In The Workplace

>DEPARTMENTS

8 SDEA Training

9 HR Strange But True

>ATTACHMENTSDEA Member Needs Assessment Survey

PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS STAGE I OF FEDERAL HEALTH CARE REFORM INTO LAW

pg. 2

2 San Diego Employers Association • 888.625.7332 • www.sdea.com

President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the first of two interrelated bills that together will embody Congress’s comprehensive health care reform legislation. The second piece of the legislative package is H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.” The Senate will take up that bill as early as tomorrow.

Why are there two bills? Some media accounts of the new legislation may have been a little confusing because it is highly unusual for Congress to use two separate bills to enact what is supposed to be a single, unified piece of legislation. To clarify what has been adopted so far and what remains to be adopted, below is a short chronology of the legislative and political events that led to the “two bill” approach.

On September 17, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid circulated a draft of H.R. 3590, entitled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is the bill which, with some modifications, became the statute the President signed today. During the week of December 21, 2009, Senator Reid caucused with other Senators to create an amendment to his original proposal, Senate Amendment No. 2786. The amendment spelled out changes to Senator Reid’s draft offered by other Senators with Senator Reid’s approval. It contained several provisions that became controversial when they came to light, such as the “Cornhusker Kickback” and the Merkley Construction Industry Amendment.

On December 24, 2009, the Senate adopted H.R. 3590, as amended by Senate Amendment No. 2786. That bill was sent to the House of Representatives, where it was expected to undergo at most only a handful of relatively insignificant changes before its adoption by the House. To the extent any changes were made in the House, the two versions of the bill would require reconciliation by a conference committee and then another affirmative vote in each chamber.

The anticipated route to a single bill embodying a House and Senate compromise was derailed by the outcome of the special Senatorial election held in Massachusetts on January 19, 2010. Republican Scott Brown was chosen to serve out the remaining term of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, giving the Republicans a filibuster-proof 41 votes in the Senate. During the early weeks of March 2010, a “two bill” approach was adopted to circumvent a possible filibuster. The essence of this approach involved a vote by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, adopting the Senate bill “as is.” House Democrats who were unhappy with the Senate bill were persuaded to vote for it on the understanding that the House would immediately pass a laundry

list of amendments to the PPACA contained in a separate bill, H.R. 4872, and that the Senate would adopt those amendments shortly after the PPACA was signed into law.

What provisions of the PPACA will have a direct effect on employers?

Employers will be affected most directly by the health coverage provisions of Titles I and IX of the Act. Those provisions will transform the current model for employer-sponsored health coverage, under which an employer generally can choose whether, to what extent, and on what terms it will provide health coverage for some or all of its employees. In place of the current model, the Act will place an obligation on most individuals beginning in 2014 to obtain coverage for themselves and their dependents. In 2014, the Act also will begin to impose a financial responsibility on employers to subsidize the coverage selected by most employees.

Short Term Effects of PPACA on Individuals and Group Health Plans. Before turning to the substantial changes that will begin in 2014, it is worth noting a few of the “early deliverables” under the Act, beginning with the one that arguably had the greatest popular appeal. Within 90 days of enactment, the federal government will establish a temporary high risk pool that will insure individuals with pre-existing conditions. That pool will continue through 2014, when a ban on pre-existing condition exclusions goes into effect.

Effective for plan years beginning on or after September 22, 2010, lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage are prohibited, coverage of unmarried dependent children under a plan maintained by a parent’s employer is extended to age 26, and “first dollar coverage” (i.e., no cost sharing) for certain evidence-based preventative care is required.

The Individual Mandate. Beginning in 2014, the Act will add a new provision to the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a penalty tax on an “applicable individual” who does not maintain “minimum essential coverage” for himself or herself and for any dependent who is an “applicable individual” during any month after 2013. The amount of the penalty is determined by a complex formula that takes into account factors such as household income and the national average premium for coverage under “bronze plans” offered by state or regional insurance Exchanges. The maximum penalty tax will be phased in over three years, reaching $2,250 in 2016, and it will be indexed thereafter. Certain “applicable individuals” are exempt from the penalty tax, including (a) individuals whose household income falls below the federal poverty line; and (b) individuals whose share of premiums or employee contributions would exceed eight percent of their

>PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS STAGE I OF FEDERAL HEALTH CARE REFORM INTO LAWCompliments of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C


household income. These exemptions apply only after taking into account a means-based tax credit that will be available under the Act.

The Employer Mandate. The Act also adds a provision to the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a monthly assessment on certain employers that do not offer an employer-sponsored health plan that meets federally-determined standards for health coverage to their full-time employees, or that offer such coverage but whose plans have a waiting period of 60 or more days. The penalty for an extended waiting period is $600 per full-time employee to whom the waiting period applies. The penalty for not offering all full-time employees an opportunity to enroll in “minimum essential coverage” under an eligible employer-sponsored plan can be far greater: if even one full-time employee obtains such coverage elsewhere and is eligible for a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, the monthly assessment on the employer is a multiple of all the employer’s full-time employees during the month. Finally, an assessment also applies if an employer subject to the mandate fails to subsidize a sufficient portion of the employee’s cost for “minimum essential coverage” to prevent the employee from qualifying for a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction. This “under-subsidization” tax also is based on the employer’s total number of full-time employees, even if only one full-time employee qualified for the tax credit or cost-sharing.

The mandate applies only to an “applicable large employer,” which generally means an employer that employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year. However, beginning in 2013, employers with as few as five full-time employees can be subject to the employer mandate if substantially all their revenue is derived from the construction industry and their annual gross receipts exceed $250,000. A series of complex rules governs the calculation of an employer’s average number of full-time employees. Also, the term “full-time employee” is defined as an employee employed on average at least 30 “hours of service” per week, using a new definition of “hour of service” to be promulgated by the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Labor – a definition that may not precisely match the definition of an “hour of service” for qualified retirement plan purposes.

Health Care Exchanges. The most fundamental changes caused by the Act will result from the creation of 50 or more geographically-based marketplaces, referred to as “Exchanges,” where standardized insurance packages can be purchased on what are expected to be favorable terms. The territory of many Exchanges will coincide with state or municipal boundaries, although multiple states can operate a single Exchange. In addition, the Act provides for multi-state health plans to be offered by these Exchanges. The multi-state plans will be established by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management by contracts with for-profit and not-for-profit insurers.

The Act creates incentives for employers and individual consumers to prefer Exchange-provided coverage to other coverage alternatives. The Act also bars an insurer from offering coverage on an Exchange unless the insurer’s policies adhere to standards established under the Act or in regulations that will be adopted by HHS under the Act. In addition, insurers will be required to make periodic disclosures relating to rating, claims processing, and other matters. Each Exchange will have additional protections from competition that could allow it to become virtually the only viable marketplace for health care coverage within its territory.

Excise Tax on “Cadillac” Health Plans. Beginning in 2013, coverage under group health plans that departs upwards from the basic federal model will become subject to a non-deductible excise tax. The 40 percent excise tax will apply to the amount by which the cost of the coverage provided to an employee exceeds predetermined limits. In the first year the excise tax applies, the annual limits are $8,500 for self-only coverage and $23,000 for any other coverage. (The limits will be subject to cost-of-living adjustments thereafter.) Any cost above those limits will be taxed at 40 percent, even if the employee pays 100 percent of the entire cost of the coverage. The Cadillac health plan tax is expected to discourage employers from offering any group health plan that is not an “off the rack” Exchange-available insured plan.

What effects will H.R. 4872 have on the employment-related provisions of PPACA?

If H.R. 4872 is adopted in its present form, it will have several important effects on the employer-related provisions of the PPACA. It will extend to all group health plans the increase to age 26 for coverage of non-dependent children. Similarly, it eliminates an exception in the PPACA for “grandfathered plans” that exempts them from the prohibitions on lifetime limits, the prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions, and other group market reforms.

H.R. 4872 also will postpone the excise tax on Cadillac group health plans until 2018, and raise the annual limits on which the tax will be based. In addition, it will allow for some relief in the case of an employer whose employee population deviates significantly from a national risk pool in a way that makes the employee group more costly to cover. It also reduces the penalty otherwise applicable to small employers that violate the employer mandate under the Act by permitting the penalty calculation to be based on the actual number of the employer’s full-time employees minus 30. By contrast, H.R. 4872 will increase one significant limitation on the amount of the penalty tax due from an “applicable individual” who does not satisfy the individual mandate to be insured.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.Client Services Department191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4800 Atlanta, GA 30303Telephone: [email protected] - www.ogletreedeakins.com


San Diego Employers Associationis on Get exclusive savings on upcomingevents & stay connected with theSan Diego Employers Association.Visit: www.facebook.com/sdeaHRexpertsto become a fan today!

BALTIMORE – Administaff, Inc., a nationwide company which provides full-service human resources to small and medium-size businesses will pay $115,000 and furnish substantial remedial relief to settle a harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to EEOC’s suit (Case No. 1:09-cv-02881-BEL) filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, Kingwood, Texas-based Administaff and Conn-X, LLC, a Florida-based cable service provider, violated federal law by engaging in religious discrimination against employees at Conn-X’s Edgewood, Md., office.

The EEOC said that Scott Jacobson and Joey Jacobson, who are brothers, were called “dirty Jew,” “dumb Jew,” and other anti-Semitic slurs by managers and coworkers because of their religion, Judaism. The harassment began in September 2005 and continued for a couple of years and included the defacing of Scott Jacobson’s work vehicle with a swastika symbol, the EEOC said. He was also physically harassed when he was forced into a trash bin for the amusement of managers who observed them on a work surveillance camera and called it “throw the Jew in the dumpster.” The EEOC’s lawsuit against Conn-X, LLC remains unresolved.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious harassment. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

“What happened to these workers was cruel and callous, involving physical mistreatment, as well as hateful religious slurs and anti-Semitic symbols” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act embodies the promise that no one should have to endure this kind of abuse in the workplace. We are gratified we fought and brought an end to the religious discrimination that was happening here, and that we could secure a measure of justice for these victims.”

In addition to the monetary relief to the Jacobsons, the consent decree settling the suit enjoins Administaff, Inc. from engaging in harassment on the basis of religion and from retaliating against employees who complain about it. The employer agreed to revise its policy against harassment and retaliation, provide training to its managers on anti-discrimination laws, and to post notices stating its commitment to maintaining an environment free of religious harassment and retaliation.

“Employers play a critical role in creating a work environment respectful of employee’s religious beliefs,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “It is never acceptable to come to work and have your religion and heritage made the subject of such callous and impermissible treatment.”

Religious discrimination charge filings nationwide with the EEOC have increased substantially over the years. In Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC received a record high level of 3,386 religious discrimination charges – nearly double the number of religious discrimination charges since FY 1992.

According to its web site (www.administaff.com), “Administaff, Inc. is the nation’s leading professional employer organization (PEO), serving as a full-service human resources department for small and medium-sized businesses throughout the United States. Administaff delivers its personnel management services by entering into a co-employment relationship with a client company and the client company’s existing employees, including the business owner. Under this arrangement, Administaff assumes or shares many of the responsibilities of being an employer.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available at its web site (www.eeoc.gov).

>PRESS RELEASE 3-17-10ADMINISTAFF TO PAY $115,000 FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS NATIONWIDE STAFFING COMPANY SUBJECTED JEWISH EMPLOYEES TO VERBAL AND PHYSICAL HARASSMENT, EEOC CHARGED

http://www.administaff.com

http://www.eeoc.gov


>NEGOTIATIONSBy Tom Puffer

A fair and equitable labor contract was reached between SLOAN ELECTRIC and IBEW 569. The three-year Agreement specified that there will be no wage increase in 2010 but the employer agreed to pick up the increases cost of health and welfare for one year. In 2011 and 2012 the parties agreed to split the cost of any increase. Wage increases of 2.5% were agreed upon for 2011 and 2012. The probationary period for new employees was increased from 120 days to 150 days and a less expensive health and welfare package was agreed upon. As with so many labor contracts today, health and welfare costs have become the primary area of contention. This settlement however, was far less contentious than most because of the trust and confidence the employees have in owner Jerry Gray. SDEA represented the employer in this matter.

By Jennifer Jacobus, PHR-CA

While California does not require employers to offer paid sick leave (although there is a San Francisco ordinance that mandates paid sick leave), the California Labor Code (section 233) requires employers providing paid sick leave to permit employees to use a portion of the leave to care for certain family members. The Code also specifically prohibits employers from denying an employee the right to use half their accrued sick leave to care for a family member (as defined) as well as from taking adverse action against an employee for using or attempting to use sick leave for kin care.

Specifically, employers who offer paid sick leave benefits are required to allow their employees to use half of their “accrued and available sick leave” to care for a sick family member which is defined as the employee’s sick parent, spouse, or child, or state-registered domestic partner, and child of a state-registered domestic partner.

In February of this year, the Supreme Court decided that not all sick leave policies are created equal and therefore not all sick leave policies are covered under Kin Care Laws.

Many employers provide sick leave in which employees can take a specific number of days or hours for the purposes of sick leave which may be either accrued throughout the year or granted all at once. These policies are either capped once a certain number of days or hours are reached, the employee may lose unused time at the end of the year (use-it-or-lose-it), or they may be paid out for their unused time. On the other hand, other employers provide for uncapped or unlimited sick leave—policies that do not include a cap or limit on the amount of paid sick leave that an employee may use. The latter of these two examples, per the direction of the California Supreme Court, is not affected by Kin Care regulations.

In McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, the California Supreme Court took a literal reading of the kin care law and recognized that the kin care law “does not apply to any and all forms of compensated time off for illness.” The court concluded that policies with uncapped or unlimited use of sick leave did not fit within the law’s meaning of “sick leave”. Kin care law defines sick leave as “an amount not less than would be accrued during six months.” With its reliance on the term “accrued” this language “indicated that the reach of the statute is limited to employers that provide measurable, banked amounts of sick leave.”

Because, unlike other types of policies, unlimited sick policies do not provide any measurable or banked amount of sick leave, they are not covered by the kin care law.

If you are uncertain on whether or not your sick leave policy requires Kin Care leave compliance, call SDEA at 858-679-7332.

>NOT ALL SICK LEAVE PLANS ARE CREATED EQUAL—DOES KIN CARE APPLY TO YOUR PLAN?

San Diego Employers Associationis on Get exclusive savings on upcomingevents stay & connected with theSan Diego Employers Association.Follow us at:www.twitter.com/SDEA_HR_Experts


San Diego Employers Associationis on Get exclusive savings on upcomingevents stay & connected with theSan Diego Employers Association.Visit: www.sdea.comto join our group today!

>SDEA PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE: “CHANGE”To the fearful, change is threatening because of the fear that things may get worse. To the hopeful, change is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident, change is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.

-King Whitney

Dear Membership,

Nothing endures but change. So here we go…I’m asking for your insightful input on the reshaping of SDEA. What is it that is important to you--what are some of the “must haves” you believe would improve SDEA?

We are considering marketing our product to a wider spectrum of people within your organization i.e., customer service, collections, purchasing, sales, and leadership. We are considering packaging a series of classes so we might provide quality education to help you, the HR professional, in your planned or established employee training requirements. We are looking into providing accreditations for some of these employee categories as well.

What about marketing? Today SDEA is just a delete button away from not getting our message across, how do we improve the odds?

We are starting this process by asking for your input on SDEA’s training offerings. Please complete the attached Training Needs Assessment. Change is coming. I would like to think that you are our “Windows 7 Person” and the new SDEA was your idea.

Ed Fairhurst, PresidentSan Diego Employers Association

>I-9 FORM AUDITS AWAIT EMPLOYERS IN 5 STATESCompliment of BLR

U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement

(ICE) has sent notices

to 180 employers in

5 states, saying ICE

will be inspecting

their hiring records to

determine whether they

are complying with

employment eligibility

verification laws and

regulations.

The inspections will take place in Louisiana, Mississippi,

Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee . The inspections are part

of ICE’s increased focus on holding employers accountable for

their hiring practices and efforts to ensure a legal workforce.

Employers are required to complete and retain a Form I-9

for each individual they hire for employment in the United

States . This form requires employers to review and record the

individual’s identity document(s) and determine whether the

document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and related to

the individual.

In 2009, ICE implemented a new, comprehensive strategy

to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect

employment opportunities for the nation’s workforce. Under

this strategy, ICE is focusing its resources on the auditing and

investigation of employers suspected of cultivating illegal

workplaces by knowingly employing illegal workers.

SDEA’s April Roundtable will address the proper way to fill out

I-9 forms, what ICE is looking for and information on E-verify.

ICE has already hit San Diego with these audits—be prepared

in case you are next!

Roundtable: April 16, 2010, Southbay Grill in Chula vista—

got to www.sdea.com to register.

http://www.sdea.com

SDEA Group Purchasing OrganizationUsing our Collective Purchasing Power to Save our Members Money


>OFFICE ROMANCESBy Jennifer Jacobus, PHR-CA

Spring fling, summer romance, no matter what you call it, it can spell trouble if it involves co-workers. It’s no surprise that the employees of today’s workforce spend more time at work than they do at home, in many cases, there just isn’t time to pursue a romantic relationship outside of the office, so it would only seem natural that a workplace romance may evolve.

In a survey regarding office dating, conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management and the Wall Street Journal’s CareerJournal.com, 77 percent of HR professionals reported sexual harassment concerns, and 67 percent said they had concerns about retaliation.

The same survey reported four percent of human resource professionals and 14 percent of employees say that dating in the workplace shouldn’t be permitted. However, 80 percent of HR professionals and 60 percent of employees oppose dating between a supervisor and a subordinate, the survey found.

The survey found that more than 70 percent of organizations have no policies on workplace romance, and of those that do, the vast majority discourage dating rather than forbid it. Only 9 percent of organizations prohibit dating in the workplace entirely.

As an employer or HR professional, here are some things to consider when deciding at what level to interfere with your employee’s personal affairs:

Relationships are hard and sometimes there will be arguments. Co-workers involved in a romantic relationship can cause increased tension at work especially if one partner’s position is superior to the other, or if they are working on the same team. If a supervisor and employee have a personal argument, will the supervisor be able to treat that person with respect at the office?

A potential office romance will always fuel the rumor mill. Remember, in an office setting, perception is reality. Even subtle flirting at work can be enough to start the rumors of a relationship. There also could be the claims of favoritism if the love interest is the supervisor.

What happens if the relationship ends? If a relationship ends with a bad break up, will major confrontations be avoided at work? What about retaliation or perception of retaliation?

Office romances pose several potential legal issues for employers, prompting some employers to use “love contracts” to help minimize their liability.

If you are considering such a “contract” here are some elements we suggest you include:

If employees are on the same reporting level, the contract

should include language “that the employees will not seek or accept a position where one reports to the other”.

If one employee already supervises the other before the romance begins, and it’s not possible to transfer one, consider that the supervisor agree “to be permanently removed from any decision-making authority over the subordinate”.

Since harassment can potentially play a role in an ugly breakup, include language that “dating employees agree to waive their rights to pursue a claim of sexual harassment for any event prior to the signing of the contract”.

Such a policy should be incorporated into your employee handbook as well. The policy should state that the employee(s) have an obligation to notify human resources about the relationship. To be certain that the policy is applied fairly, once the company becomes aware of any type of romantic relationship, it is important that the couple is approached, not necessarily together, so that they can be reminded of company policy.

LUNCH & LEARNApril 22nd, 2010 12pm - 1pm

At SDEA Learning FacilityCOST: FREE!

Conducted By: Brad Flipse Regional President, Paylocity

Please join us for a discussion and

demostration on how to strealine your payroll, HRIS and HR support processes.

Email your reservation to [email protected]


Training April 2010Course Prices SDEA Members: Half Day $70.00 Full Day $130.00 Non Members: Half Day $120.00 Full Day $200.00Webinars: Members $65.00 Non $115.00 Breakfast Brief FREE for Everyone. HR Roundtables: Members $40.00 Non $55.00

April 7th Harassment Prevention Training 9am-11:30amJessica Zaldivar, PHR HR Consultant at SDEAEmployers of 50 or More Employees are REQUIRED by California Law to Train their Supervisors, Managers, Executives, and Officers on Harassment Prevention for the Workplace. Employers of less than 50 are not mandated to train their leaders... but are still held LIABLE for the course content and compliance with Anti-Harassment concepts and laws. Train your organizational leaders often and well. They are your key to protecting your organization from costly claims!

April 12th Unemployment Insurance Claims 9am-12pmMichelle Peard, SPHRAlmost every company has to deal with Unemployment Insurance Claims right now. Many feel that the EDD is awarding Unemployment in every circumstance regardless of the reason for termination. Is your company is doing everything it can to handle unemployment compensa-tion claims and save money? If you handle the Unemployment Claims for your office you must understand: the Unemployment Claims System, the Unemployment Insurance Code and the BEST Strategies and Tips for Defending or Winning the Claim

April 13th Interviewing By Example 9am-4pm Janis Whitaker President of JP Whitaker and Associates

Are you hiring or about to start hiring? You know that it costs time and money to hire and train an individual for your organization. If your selection process isn’t effective, you waste both time and money, place the wrong employee in the wrong job, and run risk of a costly EEOC

claim. The Professional Development Course, Interviewing by Example will benefit everyone involved in the hiring process. Attendees will spend less time interviewing, conduct behavioral interviews to accurately predict future work performance and understand the essentials to

EEOC compliance.

April 16th HR Roundtable 11:30am-1pmThe Department of Homeland Security Presents: Employment Eligibility VerificationProtect your business by learning the proper procedures and practices in completing a Form I-9. Avoid making the common mistakes that lead to penalties and fines if you were to be audited. Get an introduction to E-Verify and how it helps employers.

April 19th Recordkeeping Basics 9am - 12pmMichelle Peard, SPHR

The importance of recordkeeping risen dramatically due to federal and state compliance requirements and organizational needs to track resources and expenses. In this seminar, participants learn the importance of accurate recordkeeping including: what to keep (how, where and

why), how long to keep records, who can access and use information, and the importance of objective documentation for use in defending legal charges.

April 20th Newly Appointed Supervisor 9am - 4pm Dr. Lori Miller Do your supervisors have the leadership tools they need to grasp the full range of their responsibilities, inspire others, and achieve results? This workshop focuses on the communication, motivation and problem solving skills necessary for supervisory success and the practical tools needed to build positive working relationships. This is a “must have” experience for all new supervisors.

April 27th Building A Great Team 9am - 4pmStacey McKibben ActionCOACH

Is Your Team Working For You? TeamRICH…the essential workshop for Business Growth. Turn your team of champions into a champion team. If you’re ever going to take time out from running your business or doing your job for a week, then the people who work there will need to

run it for you. By attending you will learn these priceless techniques: the 7 keys to a winning team, how to build a supportive and productive culture, how to effectively communicate with each other, how to develop a open relationship with your team, and more.

April 29th Skills For Working Leaders I 9am-4pm Jan Zaragoza of High Performance Training SolutionsYour supervisors and leads have a profound effect on employee motivation, job satisfaction, and performance. Do they have the basic skills necessary to be a good leader and coach? Can they set clear expectations and providing on-going feedback to their staff? Do they know how to effectively have the difficult conversations about performance? Do they know the difference between being a buddy and a supervisor? This course will teach them those skills and more!

>RELIGION AND THE WORKPLACEBy: Jessica Zaldivar, PHR

Years ago, work was work, and religion was religion. People weren’t thinking about bringing their faith to the office. Over the ears, especially after 9/11, as interest in religion increased, people are more eager to integrate their faith and work lives.

Integration, however, is never problem-free. As religion increasingly collides with corporate policies and practices, companies are asking when they are required to accommodate religious practices.

The starting point for any discussion of religion in the workplace is Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to prohibiting discrimination by private and public employers on the grounds of race, color, sex, religion and national origin, Title VII states that an employer must provide “reasonable accommodation” of an employee’s religious beliefs and practices. Employers are required to reasonably accommodate religious practices unless accommodation would cause an “undue hardship”. In order to determine if an accommodation is an undue hardship the following factors need to be taken into consideration the size and nature of the business, the type and cost of the accommodation required, and notice of the requested accommodation. Undue hardship may be claimed by an employer in situation where accommodating an employee’s religious practices would require more than ordinary administrative costs.

The employer should have an interactive conversation with the employee requesting the accommodation to determine the options for a reasonable accommodation. Options for a reasonable accommodation could include: flexible arrival and departure times, floating or optional holidays, flexible work breaks, staggered work hours, and permitting an employee to make up time lost due to observance of religious practices. Other alternatives for an accommodation might include substituting workers, exchanging employee hours, planning flexible work schedules, transferring employees, and changing job assignments.

In the end each request for accommodation based upon religious beliefs will turn to the facts of the specific case and sometimes even small differences in facts can lead to substantially different outcomes. It is usually a good idea to consult with labor or employment counsel before saying “no” to any religious based request, even one that at first sounds odd.

>HR STRANGE BUT TRUE! ‘FINGER LADY’: A SINGLE DIGIT CONSPIRACY Compliments of BLR

There’s a strange workplace angle in the case of a woman who went to prison after pleading guilty to falsely reporting that she found a severed finger in her chili.

In 2005, a woman claimed that she discovered a severed finger in her chili at a fast-food restaurant in San Jose, CA. After she supposedly bit down on the finger while eating chili at the fast food restaurant, the woman showed the fingertip to other restaurant patrons and warned them to avoid the chili. She then retained an attorney and garnered a lot of publicity. The fast-food chain says it lost millions because of the bad publicity.

Investigators said the woman’s story didn’t add up. For example, they said an investigation determined that the condition of the finger was inconsistent with it having been cooked in chili at 170 degrees for three hours, which was the restaurant’s method of preparing chili.

Prosecutors said she planted the finger, arguing that the woman’s husband had purchased the finger from a co-worker who had severed it in a workplace accident at an asphalt plant. The price? $100.

Prosecutors alleged that the husband had told the co-worker “he was going to have his wife place the fingertip in some food” and later offered the co-worker a slice of any lawsuit proceeds in exchange for his silence.

Prosecutors charged the woman with false or fraudulent insurance claim and attempted grand theft. The woman pleaded guilty and served four years in prison. The woman told CBS-5 in California that other prisoners dubbed her the “finger lady.”

In addition to the prison sentence, the woman was ordered to pay restitution to the fast-food chain and hundreds of employees (who had their hours reduced after the woman made her claims). The husband also pleased guilty to charges related to the scheme and received a prison sentence.


SDEA MEMBER NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY

1. Which of the following most closely matches your job title/function?

__Owner__Executive Management team__Department Director__Human Resources __Manager, Supervisor__Professional (ie, Engineer, Chemist, Market Analyst, Strategic Planner)__Technician, Paraprofessional__Administrative, Clerical

2. Which of the following most closely matches your job function:

__Human Resources__General Administrative__Finance__Marketing, Sales__Public Relations Communications__Research & Development__Legal, Regulatory__Other (Please specify___________)

3.In which department are you working now?__Finance__Marketing__Sales__Operations__Human Resources__Other (Please specify___________)

4. How do you typically obtain the training or compliance information you need? Rank 1-9, with 1 being what you would do first:

__SDEA__Internet__Internal Resources__Professional/Trade journal publications__Consult with a colleague__Hire a consultant__Contact Professional Society__Other (Please specify____________)

5.Would your rate your need for training as:

__Frequent and intense (daily or several times per week)__Average, Regular, (weekly or two-three times per month)__Sporadic (when starting new projects, when responding to a specific inquiry, etc)

SDEA MEMBER NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY6. Can you estimate the number of hours you would save per week if the training required for your work were always readily available.

__Less than 1 hour__2-4 hours__4-6 hours__6-8 hours__More than 8 hours

7. Do training services provided by SDEA help your company hold a competitive advantage in the market place?

__Yes __No __Don’t Know

8. What training initiatives are you spearheading in the next 6-12 months?

9. What days of the week or time of the day works best for you?

MondayFridayMid-weekMorningsEveningLate afternoon

10. What area of town better suits your training needs?

East CountyNorth CountyMission Valley/Kearny MesaDowntownGolden TrianglePoway/Scripps Ranch

11. Do you have any other thoughts, comments or insights that would be useful to us in this needs assessment process?

12. Please describe in your own words, products or services SDEA could provide to make you more productive in your work.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT TO US!PLEASE FAX BACK TO SDEA AT: 858.679.7355

Documents

April 2010 Newsletter