Frankly Speaking: What’s old is new again

Standard

Frank Cania circa 1974

As predicted, 2024 is another active year for new and updated employment-related legislation and regulations for employers to comply with. That’s why I’ve spent countless hours meeting with state and federal legislative offices and regulatory agencies about employment laws and regulations over the past twenty-plus years. [After taking an informal poll of intelligent human beings, I’m comfortable saying you have a warped personality. I found that people would choose to do anything – including getting a root canal without anesthesia – rather than meet with legislators.] If you’re a new Frankly Speaking reader, I channel the commentary in [brackets] from my snarky [you mean brilliantly witty] alter ego.

To hit the ground running, I joined more than 50 HR professionals from throughout NY State in Albany on Tuesday, January 30th, for scheduled meetings with the offices of state senators and assembly members. The topics of those conversations, which I share below, will impact every business operating in NY State. [You realize that people can simply skip to that part without reading anything in between, right?]

Out with the new and back to the old

According to the fashion websites I frequent daily, [OK, anyone who has ever seen you knows that’s a lie!] the outfit I wore in the 1975 Montgomery Ward Family Fashion Show (pictured above) is a retro fashion comeback for 2024! [Oh my! I don’t even know where to begin with that.] The same can be said for the “new” Final Rule on the proper classification of independent contractors recently implemented by the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”). So, if your business issues one or more 1099 NEC forms, please don’t skip this section.

The DOL has long asserted that businesses excessively misclassify workers as independent contractors. Based on my experience, businesses practicing intentional wholesale misclassification of workers are the exceptions. For the rest, worker misclassification is generally unintentional, based on the practicality of the situation, and due primarily to confusion regarding the rules. Then, the confusion is made worse because multiple state and federal agencies have promulgated their own rules in this area. So, for example, employers with operations in states where laws governing independent contractor classification are more restrictive – such as CA, NJ, and MA – may not understand that they must follow the more stringent rules in those jurisdictions.  

The new Final Rule, titled “Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act” (“FLSA”), replaces one that took effect in 2021. Recycled from the Obama Administration, the 2024 version provides a six-factor test for determining independent contractor classification and focuses on whether each factor indicates the worker is economically dependent upon the employer.

The six factors are:

  1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill: This factor focuses on whether the worker exercises managerial skill that affects their economic success or failure. Activities like actively marketing their services, negotiating contracts, and deciding which jobs to perform and when to perform them would help meet this test.
  2. Investment by the worker: This factor evaluates whether the nature of the worker’s investment is capital or entrepreneurial. While costs such as tools, equipment, and the worker’s labor are not evidence of capital or entrepreneurial investment, paying expenses like rent, business insurance, and marketing services would satisfy this test.
  3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship: This factor analyzes whether the work relationship is for a definite period or indefinite. Definite or sporadic relationships indicate independent contractor status, while indefinite or continuous relationships indicate employee status.
  4. Nature and degree of control by the employer: This factor assesses whether the employer or the worker has substantial control over essential aspects of performing the work, including the worker’s schedule, supervision, and ability to work for others.
  5. Whether the work is an integral part of the employer’s business: This factor considers whether the work performed is critical, necessary, or central to the company’s principal business. If so, that indicates the worker is an employee, not an independent contractor.
  6. The worker’s skills and initiative: This factor examines whether the worker uses specialized skills necessary to perform the work and whether those skills support an independent business entity rather than the worker being economically dependent on the employer’s business.

Below are a few questions that are common when I discuss this topic with employers:

Q: What if the worker prefers or insists on working as an independent contractor?

A: The short answer is that it doesn’t matter. The classification rules apply regardless of whether the worker prefers or will only provide services as an independent contractor. I’ve seen several instances where workers insisted on being treated as independent contractors. Then, after a DOL auditor found they were misclassified, the employers were required to pay those same workers thousands of dollars in “unpaid overtime” and 100 percent of that amount in liquidated damages.

Q: Do the independent contractor rules apply if we have a written contract with the worker?

A: Yes, the rules still apply. I’ve seen written agreements that help support independent contractor classification and many more that provide evidence against it. For example, agreements that state the worker reports to a member of management, must provide weekly status reports, and is responsible for following all workplace policies.

Q: Are there any other potential issues and costs if an employer misclassifies workers as independent contractors?

A: Yes. Think of misclassifying workers as a Pandora’s box. [What does a music streaming service have to do with this?] Once identified (the box is opened), several potential issues may be unleashed. The misclassifications likely violated state and federal wage and hour, tax, immigration, healthcare, and employee benefits laws. The costs associated with these violations may include, but are not limited to:

  • Local, state, and federal payroll taxes on the audit findings (previously unpaid wages/overtime);
  • Local, state, and federal taxes – including the unpaid FICA taxes – as well as penalties and interest on the previously unpaid taxes;
  • A claim for employee benefits that the worker didn’t receive because of the misclassification, such as 401(k), health and welfare benefits, vacation and sick leave, bonuses, and other benefits provided to employees in the same or similar positions.

Q: How can we eliminate the risk of misclassifying workers?

A: The only way to eliminate the risk is to eliminate the source of the risk – in this case, independent contractor relationships. Short of that, employers can minimize the risks associated with misclassifying workers by actively ensuring compliance with all applicable state and federal rules and regulations. That means:

  • Conduct a worker classification review based on the framework provided in the DOL Final Rule and any state-specific rules. [I’m sure this is something HRCE would be happy to assist with; am I right?]
  • Develop a plan to address any issues identified in the review, including quickly onboarding misclassified workers as employees.
  • Develop and implement policies and procedures for properly classifying workers going forward, including a periodic review of independent contractor relationships to ensure ongoing compliance as applicable rules and regulations change.
  • Consider engaging legal counsel with experience in worker classification to oversee and advise on the above actions.

NY State Updates

I’m sure you know NY State has minimum wage and salary threshold laws (which increased effective January 1, 2024). However, are you aware that the state also has laws and regulations regarding how employers can pay employees and even which employees can look to the DOL for assistance with wage theft claims? For example, NYLL §192 requires employers to obtain written permission from employees before they are allowed to “directly pay or deposit the net wage or salary of such employee in a bank or other financial institution.” The exception is employees working in “a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity” with weekly wages of $900.00 or more. Effective March 13, 2024, the weekly wage limit for coverage under §192 will increase from $900 to $1,300.

Similarly, effective March 13, 2024, the DOL will reject wage theft claims from employees working in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity with a weekly wage of $1,300 (currently $900) or more. For these employees, the only avenue available to recover unpaid wages remains a civil lawsuit against the employer. [I have no idea what any of that means, but please don’t try to explain it!]    

Employers should also be aware that the NY State Freelance Isn’t Free Act is effective May 20, 2024. Patterned after the NYC law of the same name, the Act provides protections for freelance workers who are paid at least $800 for their work, including for multiple projects, over a 120-day period. Further, employers must provide freelance workers with a written contract and pay them within 30 days unless the parties agree to another payment schedule in advance. Freelance workers may not be retaliated against for exercising their rights under the Act, and they may take legal action to recover double damages and attorneys’ fees.

As I mentioned above, my meetings in Albany centered around topics important to employers. First, in December 2023, Gov. Hochul vetoed Senate Bill S3100A, which would have banned non-compete agreements. The bill, which did not allow for exceptions – such as for non-competes entered into in conjunction with the sale of a business – also required the courts to award liquidated damages of $10,000.

With seemingly unscrupulous employers requiring low-wage employees to sign non-compete agreements, it’s clear that some guardrails are necessary. But a blanket ban is not the answer. With State Senator Sean Ryan announcing his intention to introduce a revised bill, we urged the legislature to take a measured approach in drafting legislation that balances the needs of both employees and employers.

I saved the best for last…[I don’t know if I can handle any more excitement!] With NY being the only remaining state with a COVID sick leave mandate, I was eager to discuss a sunset of the statute with anyone willing to listen. The good news is that two viable paths exist to sunset this mandate. First, bills have been introduced in the legislature to end the mandate. Without going into the minutia, [I could kiss you for skipping the boring details!] these bills offer somewhat complex but achievable processes. Secondly, Gov. Hochul included a proposal in her FY 2025 budget that, if passed, will sunset the COVID sick leave law on July 31, 2024. I assure you that my message was loud and clear: we don’t care how; end the COVID sick leave mandate as soon as possible!  


Please email us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com for more information on the the topics covered in this post, or any other HR compliance-related topic. Remember, when you only have one chance to get it right, you need HR Compliance Experts. [Very punny. I’ll bet you came up with that.]


Did you enjoy Frankly Speaking? Then let us know at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com! Also, feel free to share it with friends and colleagues. 

Employment-related questions or issues? Does your employee handbook need to be updated? Contact us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com, or call 585-565-3900.


Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

© 2024 HR Compliance Experts LLC

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only, does not constitute a legal opinion, and is not legal advice. The facts of each situation should be considered and analyzed individually. Therefore, you should always consult with competent employment counsel regarding any issues discussed here.


CLICK HERE to learn more about Frank Cania and HR Compliance Experts LLC.

Frankly Speaking: Minimum Wage Increased on Jan 1, and That’s Just the Beginning!

Standard

2024 Happy New Year

Welcome to 2024! On behalf of the entire HR Compliance Experts team, I wish you a year filled with good health and prosperity.

Let’s jump right in and look at what 2024 brings by way of new and updated regulations. [Are you really doing this? At least give the people who, for some reason, read your posts time to figure out what day of the week it is.] If you’re a new Frankly Speaking reader, the commentary in [brackets] is channeled from my snarky alter ego. [Snarky is so 2023; you need to find something new. Brilliantly witty seems more fitting.]

NY State Minimum Wage & Salary Threshold Increases

I’m sure most employers will agree that there’s nothing like starting the year with an increase in the minimum wage and minimum salary requirements! Well, several governors were happy to oblige.

In the “nothing like waiting until the last minute” category, Gov. Hochul and the NY State Department of Labor once again took first place. [You expected something different?] On December 27, 2023, the state issued a notice in the NY State Register that the NY DOL had adopted its previously proposed wage regulations. Effective January 1, 2024, the minimum hourly wage rates and minimum salary thresholds increased as follows: 

The 2024 NY State Budget, and new NY DOL regulations, also include automatic wage increases for 2025 and 2026:

More States Increased Minimum Wage on Jan 1

*NJ Seasonal, sm. empl. $13.73; Ag. workers $12.81; Long term care workers $18.13. 
** NY Home Care Aide minimum wage wage increased to $17.55/$18.55.     




Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

© 2024 HR Compliance Experts LLC

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only, does not constitute a legal opinion, and is not legal advice. The facts of each situation should be considered and analyzed individually. Therefore, you should always consult with competent employment counsel regarding any issues discussed here.


CLICK HERE to learn more about Frank Cania and HR Compliance Experts LLC.

Frankly Speaking: If you don’t like change, you’re probably not going to like this

Standard

Nov 2023 new-i9

Are you someone who jumps at the chance to have the latest and greatest brand, model, or version of whatever interests you? Hint, the answer is yes if you just traded up from the iPhone 14 to the iPhone 15 Titanium. [Hey, don’t judge me!] For new Frankly Speaking readers, the commentary in [brackets] is channeled from my snarky alter ego. [You know I don’t like being called “snarky.”] 

Or are you a person who keeps using what you have as long as possible? Did you reluctantly buy a new cellphone only after receiving a notice that your old phone wouldn’t work on the upgraded network? Splurged on a reconditioned 43-inch LED Smart TV when your 15-year-old “dumb” TV couldn’t be repaired? And you’re still happily driving an SUV with 153,000 miles that you bought in 2014. [Your wife is still driving that thing?!] 

The long wait is over

Well, if you’re a fan of the familiar, I have some potentially irritating news. Beginning Wednesday, November 1, 2023, all employers must use the recently updated Form I-9 for employees hired on or after that date. [Wow, after that huge build up, all you got is a new I-9 form? Talk about anticlimactic.

The new Form I-9 – Employment Eligibility Verification form – was released by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on August 1, 2023. This updated Form I-9 replaces the previous version, which, coincidentally, expired on October 31, 2022. In the interim, USCIS had instructed employers to continue using the expired form until the updated version was released and provided a three-month phase-in period through October 31, 2023. 

The most recent iteration of Form I-9 contains several noteworthy changes, including the following:

  • Sections 1 and 2 on One Page The most significant and recognizable change from several previous versions of Form I-9 is that Section 1 – Employee Information and Attestation – and Section 2 – Employer Review and Verification – are on a single page. USCIS contends that this so-called simplification will ensure a more efficient and user-friendly experience for employers. However, in reality, many of us with decades of experience assisting employers with Form I-9 compliance expect more confusion and a corresponding increase in errors. [We must be spending too much time together; I remember falling asleep reading your tantalizing article about how employers are charged enormous fines for Form I-9 errors. Something about I-9s and cannoli.
  • “Alien” Changed To “Noncitizen” USCIS no longer refers to individuals as “aliens,” instead referring to them as “noncitizens.” Additionally, Section 1 under Status 4, USCIS clarified that a noncitizen employee must provide a USCIS number, Form I-4 Admission number, or Foreign Passport number with the Country of Issuance. 
  • Preparer/Translator Certification To fit Sections 1 and 2 on a single page, USCIS removed the Preparer/Translator Certification acknowledgment checkboxes and moved the remaining fields to a separate page labeled Supplement A. Going forward when an employee completes Form I-9 with the assistance of one or more preparers and/or translators, each must complete and sign Supplement A, which the employer must retain with the employee’s Form I-9. Given that, in my experience, employees and employers often overlooked the Preparer/Translator fields when previously included in the main body of the form, moving these fields to a separate supplemental page will increase the likelihood that the information will not be provided when necessary. 
  • Employee Reverification and Rehire Previously labeled Section 3 – Reverification and Rehire – this information is now entered in Supplement B. Employers should use Supplement B to update Form I-9 when an employee is rehired within three years of the date the I-9 was initially completed; when a current employee provides proof of a legal name change (marriage, divorce, legal name change, etc.); or when a noncitizen employee is required to reverify their eligibility to work in the U.S. On the positive side, separating this section helps ensure employers will use the most current supplement when needed. However, it also appears likely that employers will forget to use Supplement B when required because it is no longer part of the Form I-9 document. 
  • “N/A” is N/A USCIS (finally) eliminated the requirement to write “N/A” in Section 1 fields that were otherwise unused, such as “Other Last Names Used” and “Apt. Number.” 
  • Updated Lists of Acceptable Documents The Lists of Acceptable Documents page was revised to include acceptable document receipts in addition to the actual documents that employees may present when completing Form I-9. USCIS also provides guidance and links to information on automatic extensions of employment authorization documentation. However, as with past versions, the Lists of Acceptable Documents does not include several documents that USCIS has otherwise determined to be acceptable. 
  • A Mobile-Friendly Form With the ubiquitous use of mobile devices, USCIS designed the revised Form I-9 to be fillable on tablets and other mobile devices. While this allows the document to be completed electronically, there are still regulatory limitations on the use of electronic signatures and the storage of electronic Form I-9 documents.
    • While the signature fields throughout the document do allow the user to type their name in the field, a typed name in these fields is not an acceptable electronic “signature.” To comply with federal regulations, Form I-9 must be printed and physically signed by the employee and employer’s representative.
    • Employers are generally required to maintain hardcopy Form I-9 files. Regardless of whether Form I-9 is completed electronically or on paper, a hardcopy of Form I-9 with original signatures must be filed and maintained by the employer, along with hardcopies of Supplements A or B. 
    • The only exceptions to the points above are for employers using a fully electronic Form I-9 system that complies with federal rules regarding electronic signatures and electronic data storage. 
  • Streamlined Instructions The Form I-9 instructions were reduced from 15 to 8 pages. Condensing the instructions was an attempt by USCIS to increase the likelihood of employers reading the instructions, thereby making it easier for employers to understand and comply with Form I-9 requirements. [Right…but does anyone really understand any of it!]

Form I-9 Q & A

Whenever I mention anything related to Form I-9 compliance, my team and I are guaranteed to receive dozens of questions. [Like, why are you so fascinated with I-9 forms?] Below are some of the most common questions we receive:

Q: I’ve never heard of an I-9 form. Is it something new, and what will happen if we don’t have one for every employee?

A: Employers have been required to complete and retain an Employment Eligibility Verification form – Form I-9 – for every individual hired on or after November 6, 1986. [I’ll bet you celebrate every year with a cake that says, “Happy Anniversary Form I-9!”] Under current rules, Section 1 of Form I-9 must be completed between the time the employee received a written job offer and no later than their first day of employment. Section 2 must be completed by the employer no later than the employee’s third day of employment. Employers who fail to follow these requirements are subject to penalties of up to $2,701 for every Form I-9 that is missing or completed incorrectly. These penalties may be enhanced up to 25% for “aggravating” factors, including business size (5%), employer’s bad faith (5%), seriousness of the errors (5%), presence of unauthorized workers (5%), and the employer’s negative history with the agency (5%).

Q: Can the employer complete Section 1 of Form I-9 for the employee?

A: No. The employee must complete, sign, and date Section 1 of Form I-9. If the employee requests the help of a preparer or a translator, the employer may provide the appropriate assistance and must complete Supplement B. 

Q: Our online employee onboarding program completes most of Section 1 of Form I-9 using information the employee entered as part of the job application process. Is this a potential issue?

A: Yes, and the employer will be responsible for this issue, not the vendor. Regardless of whether Form I-9 is completed electronically or by hand using a printed form, the information in Section 1 must be entered by the employee. If a preparer is used, they must ask the employee for the information and complete Section 1 in the employee’s presence. Under no circumstances can Section 1 be prepopulated.

Q: Now that the updated Form I-9 is required, do employers need to complete a new form for all employees?

A: No. Employers should not complete a new Form I-9 for current employees when the form is updated. Further, there could be consequences for doing so. Once completed, Form I-9 is retained the entire time the individual is employed and for a required period following the end of employment. 

Q: Is it true that employers are no longer required to complete the Form I-9 process, including looking at the employee’s documents, in person?

A: Maybe; it depends. Because it’s a somewhat complicated explanation, I’ll provide the details in an upcoming part two article. [Oh, the anticipation is already overwhelming.] For now, the short answer is that only “qualified employers” – those using E-Verify and in “good standing” with the program – are allowed to use the new Alternative I-9 Document Examination Procedure. All other employers must continue to complete the Form I-9 process – including physically examining the employee’s I-9 documentation – in person with the employee present

The bottom line

A recent study of 1.5 million hardcopy I-9 forms showed an employer error rate of 76%. Further, penalties for an error rate above are $2,701 for every Form I-9 completed incorrectly or missing. That means an employer with 25 I-9 forms with an error rate of 76% would face a minimum penalty of $51,319 (19 x $2,701). For an employer with 100 I-9 forms, a 76% error rate translates to an incredible $205,276 (76 x $2,701). If your company’s Form I-9 error rate is 76% what would your penalties be? With the potential for financially devastating situation only a random I-9 audit away, there’s no better time for us to review and help correct your I-9 forms. I promise it won’t cost anywhere near $2,701, or even $272, per form. Please email us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com for more information and to get started.


Please email us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com for more information on Form I-9 or any other HR compliance-related topic. Remember, when you only have one chance to get it right, you need HR Compliance Experts. [Very punny. I’ll bet you came up with that.]


If you have questions about compliance with local, state, and federal regulations and mandates, or want information on any of the services HR Compliance Experts offers, call us at 585-565-3900 or email HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com.

Did you enjoy Frankly Speaking? Then let us know at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com! Also, feel free to share it with friends and colleagues. 
 
Employment-related questions or issues? Does your employee handbook need to be updated? Contact us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com, or call 585-565-3900.

Posted by Frank Cania, president of HR Compliance Experts LLC.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

© 2023 HR Compliance Experts LLC

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only, does not constitute a legal opinion, and is not legal advice. The facts of each situation should be considered and analyzed individually. Therefore, you should always consult with competent employment counsel regarding any issues discussed here.


CLICK HERE to learn more about Frank Cania and HR Compliance Experts LLC.

Frankly Speaking: What Do an I-9, the FLSA, and A Fresh Cannoli Have In Common?

Standard

Cannoli

Happy Spring!

If you’re like me, picking just one favorite thing is sometimes challenging. [Not challenging at all, nothing is better than a fresh cannoli.] So, for new Frankly Speaking readers, the commentary in [brackets] is channeled from my snarky alter ego. [Snarky? That was uncalled for.] As I thought about what to write, it was difficult to decide which of my favorite topics to focus on, I-9 forms or the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). [Wow, you should eat more cannoli.] Then, after sleeping on it, I decided to focus on both! [Oh, lucky us.]

I-9 Forms – Don’t skip this section!

Did I mention that I provided testimony on the I-9 form at a U.S. House of Representatives Committee hearing? OK, I admit, few people get as excited about I-9 forms as I do. [I’ve got $5 that says the number is precisely zero.] But once you learn about the potential for astronomical fines and penalties, you’ll appreciate my borderline I-9 obsession.

First, let’s start with the basics. The expiration date on the most recent I-9 form is 10/31/2022. That’s because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the federal agency responsible for the I-9, has not released an updated form. [Shocking, a federal agency can’t get a form out on time; big deal!] While not seemingly important, it could become a significant and unbelievably expensive issue during a future I-9 audit. Call or email me if you want to know more. [How will you ever keep up with all the contacts?] According to the USCIS website, employers should continue to use the I-9 issued on 10/21/2019 (with a 10/30/2022 expiration date) until the new form is available.

Conversely, the Department of Homeland Security published its annual inflation adjustment (increase) to penalties for I-9 errors. Effective January 15, 2023, “civil money penalties” increased to a minimum of $272, up to $2,701 per form containing an error. Fines are assessed based on the percentage of the employer’s forms containing one or more errors. For example, Snarky, Inc. [I know you’re referring to me] has 200 I-9 forms subject to audit. Error-related civil money penalties would be calculated based on the following (estimated based on previous civil money penalty schedules):

  • 1% to 9% – $272 per form
  • 10% to 19% – $676 per form
  • 20% to 29% – $1,270 per form
  • 30% to 39% – $1,747 per form
  • 40% to 49% – $2,225 per form
  • 50% to 100% – $2,701 per form

Here’s the bad news; most employers don’t know whether their I-9 forms are completed correctly. The double dog worse news is that national estimates of employer I-9 error rates are approximately 75% to 85%. However, my decades of experience reviewing I-9 forms have consistently shown error rates of more than 95%. The triple dog worse news is that the civil money penalties can be catastrophic. Using the Snarky Inc. I-9 forms and the range of error rates above as an example – all of which would be charged at the maximum of $2,701 – the penalties for forms containing as little as one error are as follows:

  • 75% error rate (150 forms x $2,701) = $405,150
  • 85% error rate (170 forms x $2,701) = $459,170
  • 95% error rate (190 forms x $2,701) = $513,190

Now, the quadruple dog worse news, [as if a half-million dollars in fines isn’t the worst thing…and STOP with the double, triple, quadruple dog thing!] these penalties can be “enhanced” up to 25%. Enhancements for “aggravating” factors include the business size (5%), bad faith (5%), seriousness of the errors (5%), presence of unauthorized workers (5%), and the employer’s negative history with the agency (5%). However, in the name of full and fair disclosure, the agent in charge may also reduce the penalty amount using the same factors. These so-called “mitigating” factors are also calculated in five percent (5%) increments.

With the potential for financially devastating penalties only a random I-9 audit away, there’s no better time for us to review and help correct your I-9 forms. I promise it won’t cost anywhere near $2,701 – or even $272 – per form! Please email us at hranswers@hrcexperts.com for more information or to get started.

Fair Labor Standards Act – Overtime Rules

In May, the federal Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) is expected to release a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) related to federal overtime regulations. The NPRM will (finally) provide official public notice of the WHD’s proposed increase to the FLSA’s minimum salary threshold for the white-collar – executive, administrative, and professional – exemptions.

The Biden administration has made clear that it believes the current salary threshold – set during the Trump administration at $684/week ($35,568 annualized) – is too low. Similarly, in a December 2021 letter to the Secretary of Labor, more than 100 worker advocacy groups called for more people to be eligible for overtime. According to the letter, these groups want a threshold “substantially higher than” the $913/week ($47,476 annualized) “proposed during the Obama administration.” Long-time readers may remember that a federal judge blocked the implementation of the higher threshold, declaring the rule unlawful.

Although the details are still unknown, experts have opined what they expect when the NPRM is finally issued. Many expect the WHD to propose increasing the weekly salary threshold to somewhere between $900 to $1,000 ($46,800 to $52,000 annualized). There is also talk of the WHD proposing additional changes to the overtime rules, including revisions to the “duties tests,” the addition of automatic increases to the salary threshold, and a boost to the minimum salary for the “highly compensated employee” exemption.

My educated guess is that a threshold increase beyond about $769/week ($40,000 annualized) will likely cause business groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to challenge the move in federal court.

Fair Labor Standards Act – Overtime Rules, Part Two

The DOL isn’t alone in its attempt to modify the FLSA overtime rules. For example, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) recently reintroduced the Restoring Overtime Pay Act. This bill, co-sponsored by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and more than a dozen others, and its companion in the House of Representatives (“House”), calls for increases to the FLSA’s minimum salary threshold (annualized) as follows:

  • $45,000 – on the effective date of the Act;
  • $55,000 – January 1, 2024;
  • $65,000 – January 1, 2025;
  • $75,000 – January 1, 2026; and
  • Annual increases based on market data.

In addition, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (“CPC”) is preparing to present an executive action agenda to President Biden, which includes increasing overtime eligibility for workers. This follows a letter the CPC sent to the Labor Secretary last summer, calling for an increase to the annualized salary threshold from the current $35,568 to $82,732. [Wait, what? That’s a 233% increase!] While, as discussed above, the DOL is expected to publish its NPRM next month, I don’t see any possibility of it following the CPC’s recommendation of an almost 233% increase to a salary threshold of $82,732.

But Wait, There’s More!

After co-sponsoring the House’s version of the Restoring Overtime Pay Act, Congressman Mark Takano (D-CA) recently reintroduced the Thirty-Two-Hour Workweek Act. [Great! I could work less and get paid more!] This bill would make significant amendments to the FLSA:

  1. Change the statutory definition of a workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours. As a result, employers would be required to pay overtime to nonexempt employees for all time worked over 32 hours in a workweek. [Wait, are you serious? Where do I sign up?!]
  2. Add an overtime pay requirement when nonexempt employees work more than eight hours in a workday. Four states – Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, and Rep. Takano’s home state of CA – currently have daily overtime requirements. The bill’s authors appear to have based this section on the most generous of the four, CA. According to the bill, an employer must pay employees daily overtime as follows:

a. One-and-one-half (1½) times the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay for all time worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday; and

b. Two (2) times the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay for all time worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a workday.

The Thirty-Two-Hour Workweek Act likely has little chance of passage during the 118th Congress. However, employers – especially small business employers – should hear the message loud and clear; there is a formidable progressive movement to fundamentally change the FLSA and drastically increase the number of employees eligible for overtime.

There are also like-minded efforts at the state level. In NY – outside NY City, Long Island, and Westchester County – the 2023 minimum salary for the executive and administrative exemptions increased to $1,064.25/week ($55,341 annualized). The minimum salary in the greater NY City area remained $1,125/week ($58,500 annualized). The salary threshold in CA is $5,373.33/month ($64,480 annualized). Maine’s minimum salary is $796.17/week ($41,401 annualized), with Colorado’s salary threshold at $961.54 ($50,000 annualized). Finally, WA State is the winner at $1,259.20/week ($65,478.40 annualized) for “large” employers. However, it is worth noting that the state’s “small” business salary threshold is a mere $1,101.80 (57,293.60 annualized).

Maybe I’m getting old [Maybe…getting? No, you’re definitely already old.], but doesn’t it seem that compliance with the myriad of local, state, and federal employment laws has never been more challenging? That’s why my team and I spend the untold hours necessary to keep up with new and changing employment laws and regulations at every level.

Please email us at hranswers@hrcexperts.com for more information on I-9s, questions about salary thresholds and overtime exemptions, or any other HR compliance-related topic. Remember, when you only have one chance to get it right, you need HR Compliance Experts. [Very punny. I’ll bet you made that one up.]


If you have questions about compliance with local, state, and federal regulations and mandates, or want information on any of the services HR Compliance Experts offers, call us at 585-565-3900 or email HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com.

Did you enjoy Frankly Speaking? Then let us know at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com! Also, feel free to share it with friends and colleagues. 
 
Employment-related questions or issues? Does your employee handbook need to be updated? Contact us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com, or call 585-565-3900.

Posted by Frank Cania, president of HR Compliance Experts LLC.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

© 2023 HR Compliance Experts LLC

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only, does not constitute a legal opinion, and is not legal advice. The facts of each situation should be considered and analyzed individually. Therefore, you should always consult with competent employment counsel regarding any issues discussed here.


CLICK HERE to learn more about Frank Cania and HR Compliance Experts LLC.

Frankly Speaking: A Few “Gifts” Not On Your Wish List

Standard

Santas sack of gifts_sm

Hello, and Happy Holidays!

I can’t believe it’s been such a long time since we’ve connected! [Barf! That sounds like one of those mind-numbing “let me brag about how awesome our year has been” letters people you never talk to send with their holiday cards.] For those readers new to Frankly Speaking, the commentary in [brackets] is channeled from my snarky alter ego. [Snarky? That’s rude.] Anyway, this is my end-of-year update on some significant changes to employment laws and regulations for 2023. [Like I said, mind-numbing. Wake me when it’s over.]

Minimum Wage

Several states’ minimum wage and minimum salary rates are increasing in 2023.

In October 2022, the NY State Division of the Budget [Who makes up these names?!] issued a report recommending that certain minimum wage rates for employees in Upstate NY – areas outside NY City, Long Island, and Westchester County – be increased, as described below. Gov. Hochul accepted the recommendation on December 21, 2022, [Seriously? Why not wait until December 30th so employers have less time to change their payrolls!] so employers in the Upstate region must prepare to pay the increased minimum hourly wage and minimum salary rates beginning December 31, 2022.

The proposed Upstate minimum hourly wage rate is set at $14.20 per hour, with the minimum salary increasing to $1,064.25 per week ($55,341.00 annualized). However, employers in NY City, Long Island, and Westchester County will not see a change to the current $15.00 per hour minimum wage or the minimum salary of $1,125.00 per week ($58,500.00 annualized).  

Similarly, the proposed Upstate minimum hourly rate in the hospitality industry for food service workers – employees primarily engaged in serving food or beverages and regularly receive tips, including wait staff, bartenders, captains, and bussers (not including delivery workers) – will increase to $9.45 cash and $4.75 tip. Food service workers in NY City, Long Island, and Westchester County will not see a change to the current hourly minimum rates of $10.00 cash and $5.00 tip. Further, the proposed Upstate minimum hourly rate for service workers – employees who are not food service or fast-food workers but who customarily receive tips – is set to increase to $11.85 cash and $2.35 tip. Also, service workers in NY City, Long Island, and Westchester County will not see a change to the current hourly minimum rates of $12.50 cash and $2.50 tip. Lastly, the minimum wage rate for employees of covered fast-food restaurants will remain at $15.00 per hour. [Do you really think anyone understood any of that?

In addition to NY State, more than 20 other states plan to increase their minimum hourly wage rates on January 1, 2023 (except as noted): Alaska $10.85; Arizona $13.85; California $15.50; Colorado $13.65 (June 1, 2023); Connecticut $15.00 (June 1, 2023); Delaware $11.75; Florida $12.00 (September 30, 2023); Illinois $13.00; Maine $13.80; Maryland $13.25; Massachusetts $15.00; Michigan $10.10; Minnesota $10.59; Missouri, $12.00; Montana $9.95; Nebraska $10.50; Nevada $12.00 (July 1, 2023); New Jersey $14.13; New Mexico $12.00; Ohio $10.10; Rhode Island $13.00; South Dakota $10.80; Vermont $13.18; Virginia $12.00;  Washington (state) $15.74. Also, several states, such as California and Maine, allow local governments to set minimum hourly wage rates which exceed the state’s threshold.

Employment Law Poster Requirements

Effective December 16, 2022, all NY employers must provide their employees with electronic access to all required NY State and federal workplace employment law postings. Signed into law by Gov. Hochul last week, A7595/S6805 requires the electronic posters to be available to employees through the employer’s website or by email. In addition to maintain the required workplace postings, employers must notify all employees that the required posters are also available electronically. [Are you making this up? You always seem to be the only person who knows about this stuff.]  

The law does not consider that, while many businesses have websites, and many employees have email addresses, that is not the case for all businesses or all employees. Further, the law does not provide any direction for employers without a website on how to make the electronic posters available. Neither does it suggest how to provide the mandated notice to employees that do not have, or refuse to provide, an email address. [Why would they? It’s not the state’s problem to solve.] However, the law does indicate that employers who fail to comply with this mandate may be subject to fines.

Most states, and the federal government, have made recent updates to their required workplace posters. So, regardless of whether you have employees in NY State, it’s important that you meet both state and federal posting requirements. My team is contacting HRCE clients to remind them that 2023 state and federal all-in-one posters – both printed and electronic – are now available. Also, current and future clients can contact us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com, or 585-565-3900, with any questions or to place an order. [Tell them the snarky alter-ego sent you!]

State Paid Family Leave

Effective January 1, 2023, [There’s more? Is this ever going to end?] the following changes will take effect to NY State Paid Family Leave (“PFL”):

  • Eligible employees will now be permitted to take PFL leave to care for siblings (including biological, adopted, step-, and half-siblings) with serious health conditions.
  • Eligible employees will continue to receive 67% of their average weekly wage, up to a cap of 67% of the 2023 Statewide Average Weekly Wage (“AWW”). For 2023 the AWW increased to $1,688.19, resulting in a maximum weekly benefit increase of $62.72, to $1,131.08.
  • Employee contributions in 2023 are set at 0.455% of the employee’s gross wages per pay period, up to a maximum annual contribution of $399.43 (a decrease of $24.28 from 2022).

Employers with employees in CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, NJ, OR, RI, or WA may also have to comply with paid family leave law obligations. Contact the HR Compliance Experts team if you have questions about whether your employees are covered by a state’s paid family leave laws.

Expressing Breast Milk in the Workplace

On December 9, 2022, NY Gov. Hochul signed a bill that amends NY State Labor Law, Section 206-c. [Her pen has been working overtime this month!] Although not effective until June 7, 2023, [Don’t you want to save something for another article?] this amendment requires employers to provide reasonable unpaid break time or allow for the use of paid break or mealtime each time an employee has a reasonable need to express breast milk. This obligation continues for up to three (3) years following childbirth. Employers are also obligated to provide a designated location for expressing breast milk. The designated location:

  • Must contain a chair, a working surface, lighting, and an electrical outlet;
  • Must be in close proximity to the employee’s work area, near clean running water, shielded from view, and free from intrusion by other people;
  • Cannot be in a restroom or toilet stall.

Although the designated location is not required to be used solely for expressing breast milk, the location must be available whenever an employee needs to express breast milk. Further, the employer must notify all employees that the designated location cannot be used for any other purpose while it is occupied by an employee expressing breast milk.

Lastly, [do you promise?] if refrigeration is available in the workplace, employers must allow employees to refrigerate expressed breast milk.

Federal labor law also provides nursing mothers with some minimal rights to express breast milk in the workplace. However, like NY, 29 additional states (AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, HI, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MT, NE, NJ, NM, ND, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, AND WA) and the District of Columbia have laws regarding the expression of breast milk in the workplace. Feel free to contact the HR Compliance Experts team if you have questions about this topic.  

On behalf of Amanda, Irene, and Chrissy [and me!], I wish everyone a safe and wonderful holiday season and a very Happy New Year!


If you have questions about compliance with state and federal regulations and mandates, or want information on any of the services HR Compliance Experts offers, call us at 585-565-3900 or email HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com.

Did you enjoyed Frankly Speaking? Then let us know at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com! Also, feel free to share it with friends and colleagues. 
 
Employment-related questions or issues? Does your employee handbook need to be updated? Contact us at HRAnswers@hrcexperts.com, or call 585-565-3900.

Posted by Frank Cania, president of HR Compliance Experts LLC.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

© 2022 HR Compliance Experts LLC

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only, does not constitute a legal opinion, and is not legal advice. The facts of each situation should be considered and analyzed individually. Therefore, you should always consult with competent employment counsel regarding any issues discussed here.


CLICK HERE to learn more about Frank Cania and HR Compliance Experts LLC.