Legislative Archives

State Legislative Alert!

YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED! Please urge your state representative to oppose Senate Bill 335, which would establish a series of new penalties for Indiana employers who “knowingly” hires an unauthorized alien after September 30, 2009.

Legislation

Under S.B. 335, if an Indiana employer is found to have knowingly hired an unauthorized alien, a court may order the termination of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer, place the employer on probation for a three (3) year period, require the employer to file quarterly reports to the State, and may suspend the license of the employer to do business for up to 10 days. The proposal also affords a court the opportunity to permanently revoke the employer’s license to do business in Indiana if said employer has committed a third hiring infraction within a 10 year period of his/her initial violation under this proposal.

The bill also sets forth that a prosecuting attorney may not file an action against an employer for knowingly employing an unauthorized alien if the employer verified the employment authorization through the Federal Government’s E-Verify program. The employer may establish an affirmative defense against an alleged violation, by providing evidence that the employer complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 U.S. C. 1324a(b). However, under the provisions of this legislation, Indiana employers would be required to verify the employment eligibility of each employee through E-Verify.

Talking Points

Indiana SHRM agrees that the desire to proactively deter illegal immigration by ending unauthorized employment is both understandable and laudable, and we endorse the concept of a secure, reliable federal electronic employment verification system. However, E-Verify is far from foolproof and is not ready to meet the challenge of massively increasing its participant level as more and more states begin requiring participation.

Other key concerns to HR professionals S.B. 335 and other state immigration initiatives under consideration across the country include:

Federal Preemption – The federal government and not the states should be responsible for establishing the requirements for verifying employment eligibility under our nation’s immigration laws. Although well-intentioned, the procedures and legal requirements set forth in S.B. 335 (such as the use of the term “knowingly”) would subject Indiana employers to a different standard than those of their competitors located in nearby states.

Inadequate System Capacity – S.B. 335 would mandate the use of E-Verify for Indiana employers effective September 30, 2009, and would establish a safe harbor from liability for Indiana employers who participate in the federal E-Verify program (formerly called “Basic Pilot”). As of June 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), the two federal agencies who oversee the program, have not resolved ways to reduce processing delays. The majority of E-Verify queries are confirmed within seconds, yet about eight percent can't be confirmed and these can take several days, or in some cases weeks to resolve, putting employers in a difficult situation and subjecting thousands of legal workers to potential job loss and/or lengthy delays as they attempt to navigate the federal bureaucracy.

Susceptibility to Identity Fraud - E-Verify does not address identify fraud issues where individuals present borrowed or stolen state identity documents. This is a growing problem that puts employers, including small businesses, in the business of immigration enforcement.

· Additional Administrative Burdens – While S.B. 335 provides a shield from liability for Indiana employers using E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires effective September 30, 2009, Indiana employers would still be required to continue to attest on the Federal form I-9 that he or she had examined the new hire’s employment and identification documents to ensure authenticity, resulting in double-work for Indiana employers.

Employer Accessibility - The E-Verify program is accessible only through the Internet which many small employers in Indiana may not have access to.

Conflicting Statutes - The legislative language of S.B. 335 is ambiguous about termination procedures when a “non-confirmed” status is returned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under E-Verify.

Lastly, the impact of the various penalties set forth in this proposal – such as probation requiring reports, suspending one’s business license for up to ten days, or permanently revoking a license to do business in the State of Indiana – could have a serious impact on fellow Indiana customers, employees, and the local and State economy.

Action Needed

Call Your State Senator and Representative – Follow this link:

http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/ which will direct you to an Indiana website to “Find Your Legislator.” Once on the site, insert your zip code or click on the Indiana map and you will be provided with your legislator-specific information.

Write Your State Senator and Representative – To write your state officials, follow these steps:

Log onto SHRM Online by clicking here.
Sign in using your member number and last name.
Click on “Governmental Affairs,” then go to “HRVoice” on the left side of your screen.
Choose “Write your elected officials.”
Click on “Oppose Senate Bill 335, Establishing a Series of New Penalties for Employers Who “Knowingly” Hire An Unauthorized Alien” under the heading “Take Immediate Action on these Hot Issues.”

------------------------------------

Here is a link to SHRM's Key 2007 Issues page.

Indiana State Legislature
Bills Passed and Signed by the Governor 2007 Regular Session (May2007)

The following bills were passed and signed by Governor Daniels. These are only bills that appear to have the potential to affect an HR practitioner. Some bills that may be HR related but are only germane to the Indiana state government offices may not be included.
Additional information is available on the links section of the legislative section at www.idianashrm.org where you are linked directly to the General Assembly database.

Senate Bill 0094 – Changes terms used to describe individuals with disabilities.
Senate Bill 0128 – Pensions – deals with State excise police, gaming agents, and conservation enforcement officers.
Senate Bill 0166 – Employment protection for civil air patrol members
Senate Bill 0276 – Wage Payments – Requires an employer to pay all wages earned to date not more than ten business days before the payment date (Current law is not business days).
Senate Bill 0372 – Health insurance procedures – Requirement for department of insurance to review preauthorization practices and procedures and the standardization of other matters.
Senate Bill 0480 – Military and Veterans Benefits – Established employment criteria for employees of the Indiana Department of Veterans’ affairs and local service officers and more.

House Bill 1027 – Minimum Wage – Ties the amount of Indiana’s minimum hourly wage to the federal minimum wage.
House Bill 1092 – Military Service Benefits – Established an unpaid leave of absence of up to 10 working days for the spouse, parent, grandparent, or sibling of a person ordered to active duty in the U.S. armed forces or the National Guard.
House Bill 1452 – Various Insurance matters - Fees, licenses, etc. Amends definition of multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA).
House Bill 1509 – Lease protection for domestic violence victims (locks changed for free).
House Bill 1678 – Health Matters – Provides for tax credit related to small employer qualified wellness programs. Employer tax credit for making a health benefit plan available to the employer’s employees for the first two taxable years that the employer makes the health benefit plan available. Requires health insurances and HMO’s to cover children up to 24 years old upon request. Allows certain small employers to join together to purchase group health insurance and allows the insurance commissioner and the office of the secretary of family and social services to develop a program to provide for such purchases.
House Bill 1739 – Sale of Handguns – Eliminates the requirement that a firearms dealer, after selling a handgun, to forward a copy of Form 4473 to the State Police.

Active Bills in Congress as of May 16, 2007

HR2 / S 2 – Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 – Raise minimum wage by $2.10 an hour in three steps within 26 months. Passed House and Senate – was attached to tax package and then attached to HR1591 – Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq Accountability Act which was Vetoed May 1st. Expected to pass in some form.

HR 493 / S358 – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Actor of 2007 – Prohibit discrimination in health insurance and employment on the basis of genetic information. Passed House 4/25/2007 – Likely to pass Congress – President Supports.

HR800 / - The Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 – Amend NRLA in how workers choose to become part of a union – certify any union that secures a majority of signature through a signed authorization process. Passed House 3/1/2007. The bill is in Senate battle at this time (no bill #). President will veto if passed.

HR1540 – Civil Rights Tax Relief Act of 2007 – Back pay for job-related harassment or discrimination taxable at the rates effective during the years such pay was earned. The bill is in committee and not a top priority.

HR1542 / S910 – The Healthy Families Act – Requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide seven days of paid sick leave to full-time (30 Hours) workers. Both in committee and no outlook reported.

S1136 – Survivors’ Empowerment and Economic Security Act – Employers with 15 or more employees to provide 30 days of job-protected, unpaid leave to employees to address issues relating to domestic violence. In committee and outlook is unclear.

HR1338 / S766 – Paycheck Fairness Act – Will amend Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies of victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex. The bill is in committee and the outlook is unclear.

HR298 / - Flexible Spending Accounts Growth and Opportunities Act of 2007 The bill would allow up to $1,000 in unused funds in FSA to carry over to the next year. In committee, estimated cost may keep if from passing although it has strong support.

HR506 / - The Health Partnership Through Creative Federalism Act – Authorizes grants to states to provide health coverage to the uninsured. Expected to also be introduced in the Senate. Bill has strong Bi-partisan support.

S334 / - The Healthy Americans Act – Provides for comprehensive health care reform by requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance. Subsidies would be provided to low-income families. The bill also includes an employer mandate, requiring employers to make “Employer Shared Responsibility Payments” based on the number of full time employees. It is unlikely to pass during this Congress.

S558 / - The Mental Health parity Act of 2007 – Requires employers who offer mental health coverage to provide parity between mental health and physical health coverage. It is in committee at this time outlook unknown.

HR1424 – The Paul Wellston Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 – Expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 by requiring group health plans that offer benefits for mental health and addiction to do so on the same terms as care for other diseases. It is more expansive than S558 and in committee. Outlook?

HR1645 – Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act Immigration Reform Legislation that includes a guest worker program, interior enforcement, employment verification, and a path to citizenship for undocumented individuals. This is the starting point for House or Senate debate on the issue.

S41 -- Research Competitiveness Act – Simplifies and makes permanent the research and development tax credit. Outlook?

S239 – Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2007 – Data Breach Bill – Outlook?

HR1257 – Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act – Amends SEC Act to require public companies to include proxies for shareholder votes on executive compensation. Passed House and in Committee in the Senate. Outlook – Low!

S1038/HR1748 – Workforce Health Improvement Program – Allow employer to deduct the cost of subsidizing or providing off-site fitness center benefits for their employees, and would exclude wellness benefit from being considered a taxable income for employees. Has bi-partisan support – Outlook unclear.

HR853 – Wellness and prevention Act - Employers receive up to $200 tax credit per employee that joins the wellness program. Good support – Outlook unclear.

S1141 – Automatic IRA Act of 2007 – Would require employers with more than 10 employees and in business for more than 2 years to provide each employee the option to save for retirement through payroll deposit IRAs in exchange for tax credits up to $250.
Outlook?

S1178 – The Identity Theft Prevention Act – Another Data Breach Bill – Outlook?

S495 – Personal Data Privacy Security Act of 2007 – Privacy of data bill – Outlook?

HR1280 – Tax Equity for health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2007 – Extend exclusion from gross income for employer-provided health care coverage to certain eligible beneficiaries, including domestic partners, and their dependent children. Outlook?

HR Issues Update - March, 2007

2007 Employment Law & Legislative Conference

Highlights of SHRM’s 2007 Legislative Conference

This past week, more than 560 people participated in SHRM’s 24th annual Employment Law and Legislative Conference in Washington, DC. The program featured a balance of Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan experts, providing SHRM members with the range of information and perspectives.

NBC’s White House correspondent David Gregory provided an insider’s glimpse into how the White House press corps and the Administration fulfill their respective roles. During a lengthy question and answer period, he said he has a responsibility to question a President from any political party in the same manner.

U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao explained the Administration’s positions on several pending employment and labor bills, and expressed her gratitude to SHRM members for their active involvement in public policy issues. You can listen to Secretary Chao's entire speech at the SHRM Website.

Donna Brazille, a former Democratic campaign operative, provided her perspective - both serious and humorous - on the upcoming Presidential campaign for both parties. She encouraged SHRM members to “stay involved” in the political process, regardless of personal views or party affiliations.

Michael Beschloss, one of America’s most recognized historians and commentators, discussed the unique role that historians play in providing a perspective on our leaders’ actions. He shared intimate anecdotes about Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson to illustrate how great presidents often take risks to achieve change, even if it might weaken their chances for re-election.

In addition to two full days of in-depth sessions on a wide range of workplace issues, SHRM members participated in nearly 300 Capitol Hill meetings with their elected officials. (See related article in this issue.)

This year’s Legislative Conference also included:

• An advertising campaign in Washington, DC publications to promote SHRM and the importance of HR professionals’ involvement in public policy issues.

• Radio and print media interviews with many SHRM State Legislative Directors to help explain to their local communities how the HR profession is involved in a range of workplace issues.

• An intense focus on SHRM’s efforts to promote a fair, accurate and reliable employment verification system in any immigration reform legislation.

SHRM is a founding leader of the HR Initiative for a Legal Work Force coalition.

For more information about these and other public policy issues, please visit http://www.shrm.org/
©2007 Society for Human Resource Management

Legislative Update

(ITEMS IN RED - Closely Tracked)

Items underlined - Still Active

By mid-session a bill should have been passed out of one chamber to the other in order to be considered.  This does not mean that a bill passed out will not have something tacked onto it at the last minute.  It appears by the information we have that HB 1027, 1047, 1083, 1092, 1132, 1196, & 1488 along with SB 0018, 0276, 0372, & 0537 were passed on to the opposite chamber of the Assembly and are still under consideration.

2007 Regular Session Pertinent Bill Status as of March 5, 2007

House

HB1023 - Public School Collective Bargaining - Torr
HB1024 - Employee's right to work (anti-union) - Torr
HB1025 - Allows for not complying with Health Benefit Mandates - Torr
HB1027 -- Minimum Wage Increase - Multiple - STATUS - Passed - (Ref Senate)
HB1032 - Allows absence from work to file a protection order/attend hearing - Hoy
HB1040 - Minimum Wage - Withdrawn
HB1043 - Public Pension Payments to former spouse - Cheney
HB1047 - Disclosure of Employer Health Care Spending - Dickinson - Passed and referred to Senate
HB1064 - Minimum Wage - Micon
HB1083 - Health Benefit Plan Income Tax Credit - Orenticher - Passed and referred to Senate
HB1090 - Sale of Handguns; 1 gun purchase allowed within 30 days - Orentlicher
HB1092 - Military Family Leave - Avery - STATUS - Passed - (Ref Senate) - in the Pension & Labor Committee
HB1118 - GUN BILL - Prohibit Employer from Enforcing Rule/Policy prohibiting
                  firearms locked in a person vehicle on employer property - Denbo - 1/8
                  in Rules and Legislature Procedures Committee.
HB1132 - Notice of Plant Closings - Errington - STATUS Passed House and referred to Senate  - in Pension and Labor Committee
HB1196 - Investment Management of Pension Funds - Crawford - Passed and referred to Senate
HB1200 - Sale of Handguns - Remove state police forwarding info rqmt - Reske
HB1253 - Employment of Illegal Aliens - Tucker - Moved to Rules & Legislative
                  Procedures Committee 1/23
HB1336 - Assignment of Health Benefit Payments - Brown
HB1375 - Local Government Health Care coverage use state plans - Fry
HB 1397 - Prevent Employers from prohibiting firearms in a locked motor vehicle on company property. (Ruppel, Tincher, Koch, Bischoff)
HB1488 - Workers Comp Increases - Cheney - Passed referred to Senate
HB1491 - Collective Bargaining Public Employees - Cheney
HB1493 - Unemployment Compensation - Duncan
HB1537 - Indiana Health Care Program - Tax credits for certain small employers -
                 Reske
HB1542 - New Health Mandates - Insurance Coverage Hearing Aids - State Employee Health Plans and HMO’s to provide - Goodwin
HB1569 - Health Coverage for Children until 26 - Fry
HB1589 - Health Insurance Premium Individual Tax Deduction - Espich
HB1627 - New Health Mandate - Health Insurance Coverage for Chronic
                  Conditions - Tyler
HB1727 - Police enforcement of Federal Immigration and Customs Laws - Lehe
HB1837 - LAST REVIEWED

Senate

SB0011 - Use of False Academic Credentials - Steele
SB0018 - Handgun sales - eliminates requirement to forward purchase record to State Police - Steele - Passed Referred to House
SB0025 - Minimum Wage Increase - Bowser
SB0052 - Minimum Wage Increase - Multiple
SB0130 - Notice of Plant Closings - Mrvan
SB0152 - Assignment of Benefits (Health Payments) - Lawson
SB0167 - Collective Bargaining Public Employers - Lanane
SB0178 - Equivalent Jobs and Wage Discriminate - Provides for Employer
                 Damages - no name
SB0210 - Health Benefit Plan Credit (Employer Tax Credit) Dillon
SB0227 - Unemployment Insurance - Alternative Method for Determining Base
                 Period - Simpson
SB0230 - Family Military Leave - Simpson
SB0237 - Employee Training Tax Credits - no name
SB0249 - Minimum Wage - Mrvan
SB0276 - Wage Payments (timing) Mishler - Passed - referred to House - Committee on Labor and Employment
SB0277 - Unemployment Benefits for Education Employees - Boots
SB0306 - Limited Criminal History Checks include arrests - Hershman/Miller
SB0349 - Workers Compensation Increases - Tallian
SB0362 - Equivalent Jobs and wage Discrimination
SB0363 - Self-Sufficiency Standard for Employment - Howard
SB0372 - Health Insurance - pre-authorization - Simpson - Passed - referred to House
SB0373 - Health Security - State Department of Health - Errington
SB0405 - Workers Comp increases - Mran
SB0422 - Employment of unauthorized aliens - Simpson
SB0507 - Employer Tax Credits For Training - Delph/Kenley
SB0537 - Workers Compensation - Fees for Services - Work Comp Board - Lewis - Passed - Referred to House
SB0583 - Last Reviewed

Governors Website Legislative Focus
Full Day Kindergarten
Indiana Commerce Connector
Veterans Initiatives

To see updated information go back to the opening legislative page and hit on
Your Legislators - It will take you to a page with various links to a calendar, current activity on bills, and various other legislative and executive resources on the state and federal level.

You may also go to the following Federal Links:

http://www.shrm.org/government/federal/

http://www.shrm.org/government/factsheets_published/

Any questions or need for closer tracking of a bill – contact Rob or Steve

HR Issues Update - February 9, 2007

Union Balloting Could Go Public

New legislation in the House of Representatives could eliminate the American workers’ right to cast private ballots in union-organizing elections.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, introduced the Employee Free Choice Act along with 230 of his House colleagues. The Act would make public a worker’s vote on whether a union should serve as the bargaining representative for an organization’s employees.

Organized labor and employers allow employees to choose whether to be represented by a union in one of two ways: 1) a secret ballot election under National Labor Relations Board rules, or 2) a “card check” process, whereby union officials ask employees to sign a card demonstrating support for a union. Rep. Miller’s proposal would eliminate the secret ballot option and the federal government’s supervisory role.

SHRM is a member of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, formed to guarantee the continued right of workers to freely choose whether to be represented by a union. The Society’s concern is that a public vote could lead to a hostile work environment, employee intimidation and the removal of “free choice” in a workplace election.

In 2005, SHRM’s board of directors adopted a policy statement on Employee Representation Rights noting, “SHRM believes that government-supervised secret-ballot elections are the best process for representation and decertification elections” under the National Labor Relations Act.

SHRM Member Expresses Support and Recommendations For Genetic Discrimination Bill

SHRM reiterated its strong stance against genetic discrimination in employment at a Jan.30 hearing before the House Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Capitol Hill.

Burton J. Fishman, SHRM member and employment-law expert, testified on behalf of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Employment (GINE) Coalition, which SHRM co-chairs. In his statement, Fishman voiced SHRM’s vigorous support of genetic nondiscrimination and confidentiality. In addition, he cautioned legislators to make certain that the Genetic Non-Discrimination Information Act effectively targets discrimination, while not exposing well-intentioned employers to frivolous litigation.

“Let me be clear from the outset: The GINE Coalition strongly supports genetic nondiscrimination and confidentiality,” Fishman told the committee. “The Coalition believes that employment decisions should be based on an individual’s qualifications and ability to perform a job, not on characteristics that have no bearing on job performance.”

Fishman also stressed that employers in compliance with a new federal standard cannot be liable under the myriad of different state or local laws banning such discrimination. "There should be only one standard, your standard," he said.

For further information on the legislation, please contact SHRM Manager of Labor and Employment Legislation Michael Layman.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the FMLA

Have you ever struggled to administer the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in your workplace? At a time when the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is seeking suggestions on how to improve FMLA, Congress may soon consider legislation to expand the Act to require paid leave.

Almost 14 years after FMLA was signed into law by President Clinton, the Act’s original sponsor, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), announced he will introduce legislation expanding FMLA to include six weeks of mandatory paid family and medical leave. Dodd, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, is a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Two other Democratic presidential candidates are also members of the committee: Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL).

On the regulatory front, DOL has extended the comment period for its Request for Information on the FMLA regulations until Friday, Feb. 16, 2007. SHRM members still have time to submit a comment to DOL on issues such as intermittent leave, the definition of “serious health condition,” and other aspects of the Act that have proved difficult to implement.

Access SHRM’s HRVoice web site, select one (1) comment, and make your voice heard today!

Are Employees Asking You For Investment Advice?

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) may be about to offer HR professionals some help. DOL has asked for comments on how to implement the portion of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) that allows an employer to offer investment advice to employees without running afoul of ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules—provided that advice includes using a flat-fee arrangement or a certified computer model.

SHRM wants more simplification and clarity. In its comments to DOL on Jan. 30, SHRM recommended preserving an employer’s right to consider a range of different approaches when deciding how to make investment advice available in the workplace.

Until now, most fee disclosure information has been expressed in terms of confusing “basis points” and percentages. Instead of using these complex methods, SHRM is urging DOL to use dollar figures to explain the cost of plan fees over a 10-year period. In addition, SHRM suggested standardizing fee disclosures among providers so that participants can easily compare the fee structures of competing plans.

Purchaser’s Guide to Value-Driven Health Care

Do you want to help reign-in your company’s health care costs while maintaining the quality of care your employees have come to expect?

The Partnership for Value-Driven Health Care, a group of leading associations (including SHRM), has just released the Purchaser Guide to Value-Driven Health Care. This how-to guide outlines steps HR professionals can take to improve their health care: utilize health-information technology, measure and publish quality and price information, and create positive incentives for high quality, efficient care.

In November 2006, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt challenged employers to provide health care price and quality information to consumers. The Partnership developed the guide to encourage organizations to highlight specific items that purchasers should consider when buying health care for employees and their families.

As a member of the Partnership, SHRM strongly supports efforts to increase transparency and provide important health care information to plan participants.

States Push Fed’s ‘Basic Pilot’ Immigration Program

While Congress continues to ponder what to do about immigration reform, states are moving forward with their own plans. Unfortunately, many of these state bills would require employers to verify new employees by using the federal government’s “Basic Pilot” system. The Basic Pilot system, a voluntary program administered by the Department of Homeland Security, has been widely criticized as being unreliable.

In a Jan. 24 press release, SHRM President and CEO Sue Meisinger noted that the current Basic Pilot verification system has been “incapable of meeting the needs of our nation’s employers or of protecting the public from identify fraud.”

Last year, Colorado and Georgia were the first states to enact comprehensive immigration reform requiring companies doing business with their state governments to use the Basic Pilot program for new hires. Similar bills have now surfaced in Arizona, Kentucky, North Dakota, Tennessee, South Carolina and Virginia, among other states.

HR professionals interested in learning more about the Basic Pilot program should access two recent webcasts that SHRM hosted on the subject.

Latest info from SHRM

2/9/07 12:00 AM

Minimum wage bill includes several HR-related facets

By Bill Leonard

The minimum wage legislation (H.R. 2) passed by the Senate on Feb. 1 contains much more than just an increase to the federal minimum wage. It also includes some provisions that could have a direct impact on the human resource profession.

The House passed the minimum wage bill on Jan. 10 as a key element of the Democrats’ agenda for their first 100 hours in office as the majority party. The bill would increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over a two-year period. The Democrats had hoped to pass a “clean” wage increase bill with no business-related provisions attached to it. However, the chances of passing such a bill slimmed when the Senate tacked on a series of amendments.

To ensure passage of the legislation, Senate Democratic leaders agreed to add a series of tax breaks, which are designed to help smaller businesses offset the cost of a wage increase. Supporters of the tax breaks claim small businesses would be hit hardest by raising the minimum wage by $2.10 per hour. The Senate combined the small business tax breaks, which, according to estimates, will be worth $8.3 billion over 10 years, with several proposals to close some tax loopholes for larger businesses.

President Bush and GOP leaders in the Congress praised the amendments to H.R. 2 as a responsible package that would help workers who earn the minimum wage and the businesses that employ them. The president has stated several times that he would support a minimum wage increase only if the legislation included tax breaks for small businesses.

The amendments include some HR-related elements—such as a provision that would establish a certificate program for professional employer organizations (PEOs). If passed, the measure under the federal tax code would explicitly allow any PEO that posts a bond, files audited financial statements and has its top executives pass background checks to collect and pay federal taxes for their small-business clients.

The inclusion of the amendment in the minimum wage bill is a huge leap forward for the PEO industry, according to Milan Yager, executive vice president of the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations (NAPEO) in Alexandria, Va. For several years, the NAPEO has been pushing for the Congress to pass legislation that would clarify the status of PEOs under the federal tax code.

“The amendment sets some standards that PEOs must meet to gain a certificate for the IRS,” said Yager. “Any PEOs earning the certification would then withhold and pay taxes for their clients and allow the IRS to formally recognize the status of PEOs. The measure, if enacted, would be a very positive step for the PEO industry and further help smaller businesses provide benefits such as health care and retirement plans to their employees.”

The certification would require these companies to meet certain standards set by the IRS. Businesses that contract and outsource their payroll and benefits administration to certified PEOs would not be liable for any taxes already withheld or collected by the PEO.

Yager says that the measure would create a win/win situation for smaller businesses and their workers.

“By outsourcing the payroll and tax administration functions to PEOs, small businesses can then focus on making a profit,” Yager said. “PEOs also allow smaller businesses to provide their workers top-shelf benefits such as a 401(k)s and health insurance. Few workers at small businesses have access to comprehensive benefits except through a PEO.”

Yager says the proposed PEO certificate program should come as good news to the HR profession.

“PEOs really are becoming more of a career path for HR professionals. An increasing number of businesses are outsourcing their HR functions to PEOs, which has created a growing demand for HR professionals within our industry,” Yager said.

Not everyone is for the proposed PEO certificate program. Officials with the AFL-CIO have opposed the PEO provision, saying the proposal would further hamper union organizing efforts.

Yager said that the opposition from organized labor puzzled his organization and other supporters of the measure.

“It’s really just a tax-related measure that would actually allow businesses to offer more benefits to workers, and on top of that a business that uses a PEO typically has 15 employees or less and it is unlikely that it would be subject to most union organizing efforts,” Yager said.

Organized labor leaders condemned the whole array of business tax breaks attached to H.R. 2, saying the Senate’s action was a slap in the face of all working Americans.

“It’s disgraceful that the Senate is still holding the minimum wage hostage to tax cuts for business,” said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, in a written statement. “There is no reason for weighing down this much-needed and otherwise straightforward piece of legislation with yet another round of unwarranted tax breaks for business.”

Democratic leaders in the House have said they would insist on passage of a “clean” minimum wage bill. However, the reality is that the wage increase measure does not have the support to pass the Senate without the tax package attached.

“The Democrats do not have the needed 60 votes to avoid a filibuster and move the bill through the Senate without including the small business tax breaks,” said Mike Aitken, director of governmental affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management. “The bill should pass if the House and Senate can reach a compromise in a conference committee. It’s going to take some work from both sides to get a final piece of legislation approved.”

Several other amendments, other than the tax breaks, were attached to the bill and could serve as “bargaining chips” in conference committee negotiations, according to political observers. A controversial immigration-related amendment that would bar employers who violate federal immigration laws from being eligible for federal contracts and grants for up to 10 years may not survive a conference committee, several sources have indicated.

The immigration amendment, introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has the support of conservative Republicans; Democrats, moderate Republicans and business-related groups have all expressed opposition to the proposal.

According to House and Senate leaders, negotiations have started to craft a final piece of legislation that will be acceptable to both sides. The Congressional leaders have indicated that final action on the bill could come as early as mid-February. However, if the negotiations drag out for more than two weeks, then the final drafting of a minimum wage increase might not be complete until later this spring, sources say.

Bill Leonard is senior writer for HR News.

Related articles:

Senate passes minimum wage bill, HR News, Feb. 2, 2007

HR-related issues top Democrats’ agenda in Congress, HR News, Jan. 4, 2007

For the latest HR-related business and government news, go daily to www.shrm.org/hrnews.

Download the SHRM Purchasers Guide to Healthcare

HR Issues Update - January 26, 2007
A Note from Sue Meisinger

Welcome to HR ISSUES UPDATE, a new SHRM e–letter delivered every other Friday with current info on HR public policy topics like health care, leave rules and workplace safety. No government jargon — just quick and concise news to help HR professionals stay informed on the issues that affect their jobs daily. All articles have links to additional information and can be printed for your convenience. I hope you find this new member benefit useful.

Sue Meisinger, SPHR
President & CEO‚ SHRM

Health Care and Immigration Top Bush’s Plans for 2007
President Bush’s State of the Union speech this week outlined his vision for reforming health care and immigration in 2007—two top concerns for HR professionals and employers and for the new Democratically controlled Congress.

President Bush’s State of the Union speech this week outlined his vision for reforming health care and immigration in 2007—two top concerns for HR professionals and employers and for the new Democratically controlled Congress.

Heath Care: The President’s plan would provide all American families receiving employer-provided health care with a $15,000 standard deduction for health care ($7,500 for individuals) but, in turn, would also consider the cost of employer-provided health care above the standard deduction as taxable income. Americans who purchase their own health care could also claim the full amount of the deduction regardless of the cost of their individual or family policy. The goal is to level the playing field for those who buy their own health insurance in the marketplace with those who receive or purchase health care through their employers.

In an upcoming issue of HR ISSUES UPDATE, we will provide a simple comparison of the most talked about health care plans, including those in California and Massachusetts.

Immigration: The President called for comprehensive changes in immigration that include employment verification, a guest-worker program, stronger enforcement and a path to citizenship for some illegal aliens. Implying that the current employment verification system is not perfect, he said, “We will enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers—so there is no excuse left for violating the law.”

Following the President’s speech, SHRM President and CEO Sue Meisinger confirmed that belief, saying “Any comprehensive immigration reform must include an employment verification system that works. As HR professionals, we know the current system is both inefficient and inadequate at preventing fraud.”

"Genetics" Nondiscrimination Plan Could Expose Employers to Lawsuits
As an HR professional, you know how important it is to protect the privacy and confidentiality of employees´ medical information, including genetics. However, new proposals in Congress could expose employers to lawsuits if they allegedly discriminate in their health care coverage and employment decisions on the basis of genetics.

As an HR professional, you know how important it is to protect the privacy and confidentiality of employees’ medical information, including genetics. However, new proposals in Congress could expose employers to lawsuits if they allegedly discriminate in their health care coverage and employment decisions on the basis of genetics.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2007, SHRM member Burt Fishman will appear before the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions to discuss genetic discrimination and pending legislation intended to protect workers. Fishman will testify on behalf of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Employment Coalition, which SHRM co-chairs.

As currently drafted, the legislation would make it illegal to discriminate against an employee or job applicant based on that individual’s or family’s genetic make-up. Health insurance companies and employers also could be bared from denying health care coverage due to a potential genetic condition. Employers are concerned that such proposals could lead to expensive and frivolous litigation.

SHRM is seeking a balanced approach that protects the interests of both employees and employers. For more information, please contact Michael Layman in SHRM’s Governmental Affairs department.

SHRM Members Offer Advice on FMLA
If you’ve ever struggled with questions over how the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is implemented, now is your chance to speak out to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In response to DOL’s Request for Information about challenges employers have encountered in administering parts of the FMLA‚ SHRM has launched a major member advocacy effort to encourage members to submit their comments to the DOL.

If you’ve ever struggled with questions over how the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is implemented, now is your chance to speak out to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In response to DOL’s Request for Information about challenges employers have encountered in administering parts of the FMLA, SHRM has launched a major member advocacy effort to encourage members to submit their comments to the DOL. Deadline for comments has been extended to Friday, February 16, 2007.

On January 10, Washington State Legislative Director Jenifer Lambert opened the first of three sessions co-sponsored by SHRM to discuss issues around FMLA rules. The meetings, attended by nearly 250 SHRM members and other HR professionals, were held in Seattle, Chicago and Groton, CT. The National Coalition to Protect Family Leave, which SHRM chairs, also participated.

Already nearly 2,000 comments have been sent to the DOL by SHRM members, highlighting such issues as the definition of “serious medical condition” and intermittent leave. SHRM, through the HRVoice letter-writing program, is offering members a variety of comments to choose and submit, including the opportunity to share examples of how the current FMLA regulations have affected the workplace.

For more information on the discussion sessions or submitting comments to the DOL, please contact Kenya Wiley or Bernard Coleman in SHRM’s Governmental Affairs department.

Workplace Weapons Bills Popping Up in States Across the Country
Does your organization have a “no weapons”policy? Are some of your employees hunters? Then you could encounter problems if legislation backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) is enacted in your state. In January 2007, legislative proposals that could severely restrict an employer’s ability to ban weapons from its company property, including parking lots, have surfaced in Texas, Indiana and Georgia.

Does your organization have a “no weapons” policy? Are some of your employees hunters? Then you could encounter problems if legislation backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) is enacted in your state. In January 2007, legislative proposals that could severely restrict an employer’s ability to ban weapons from its company property, including parking lots, have surfaced in a number of states, including Texas, Indiana and Georgia.

SHRM has opposed this legislation, arguing against employer mandates and in favor of leaving the decision to individual employers on what policies are best for their workplaces. SHRM’s recent 2006 Weapons in the Workplace study found that HR professionals overwhelmingly support public policies that allow employers to bar weapons from work sites.
SHRM is tracking this issue in the states.

For more information about this issue, please contact Kathleen Coulombe in SHRM’s Governmental Affairs Department.

Federal Regulatory Alert!

On December 1, 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking the public’s input on various aspects of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) – the No. 1 HR regulatory issue of concern expressed by SHRM members in calls to our Information Center. Specifically, DOL is seeking information on the effectiveness of the current FMLA regulations, focusing on the definition of “serious health condition,” the eligibility requirements for FMLA leave, waiver of FMLA rights, and FMLA leave determinations/medical certifications.

SHRM plans to submit comments to the DOL in response to the RFI. However, this notice also provides you, as an HR professional, with an opportunity to do the same by sharing with the Department YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES in implementing the FMLA in your workplace. If the current FMLA regulations are to be improved, it is imperative that the Department of Labor receive input from HR professionals.

SHRM has developed three (3) sample comment letters for you to use in responding to the RFI. Members should limit their submissions to only one (1) comment letter. All comments are due by February 2, 2007.

Background

Enacted in 1993, the FMLA provides for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period for the birth or adoption of a child; care for a spouse, parent, son or daughter with a serious health condition; or when the employee is unable to work due to the employee’s own serious health condition. The FMLA applies only to employers who have at least 50 employees.

SHRM has helped document concerns with the FMLA regulations that have arisen through inconsistent regulatory interpretations, federal court decisions and opinion letters. Additionally, the Supreme Court invalidated some of the FMLA’s regulations in its March 2002, Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide Inc., decision, thereby adding to the confusion about what the Act provides and requires. These problems have been detailed in Congressional hearings and in survey research conducted by SHRM. The RFI will allow employers and employees to share additional information with DOL about how the current regulations are affecting implementation of the FMLA. SHRM urges all members with concerns over the implementation of the FLMA to respond to the Department of Labor’s RFI by the February 2 deadline.

Action Needed

Please contact the DOL today! This is your opportunity to help improve the FMLA regulations for both employers and employees. It is imperative that the DOL hear from HR professionals in order to strengthen the FMLA by preserving the integrity of the Act’s leave protections. The deadline for submitting comments to the DOL is February 2, 2007. To submit comments to the DOL, please follow these steps:

Log onto SHRM Online by clicking here.
Sign in using your member number and last name.
Click on “Governmental Affairs,” then go to “HRVoice” on the left side of your screen.
Choose “Write your elected officials.”
Click on ONLY 1 of the three (3) FMLA letters listed under the heading “Take Immediate Action on these Hot Issues.”

2006 Legislative Updates