Legislative Archives
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
| Society for Human Resource Management |
|||||
| State |
Bill# |
Sponsor |
Issues |
Summary |
Status |
| Indiana |
2005 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OVERVIEW |
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
S.B.
6, sponsored by Senator Vi Simpson (D) and prefiled December 6,
eliminates the waiting period for unemployment benefits. This
bill failed to pass out of committee before the March 1, crossover
deadline. Legislative sources have indicated that this bill is
dead. |
Undefined |
|
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1019 |
Representative Gerald Torr (R) |
WORK ENVIRONMENT |
Prohibits
an employer from requiring an individual to become or remain a
member of a labor organization; pay dues, fees or other charges
to a labor organization; or pay to a charity or another third
party an amount that represents dues, fees or other charges required
of member of a labor organization; as a condition of employment
or continuation of employment. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1028 |
Representative Eric Koch (R) |
WORKPLACE SAFETY / VIOLENCE |
Current
version (February 23) specifies that a person is justified in
using deadly force; and does not have a duty to retreat; if the
person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent
serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission
of a forcible felony. |
Final Enacted |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1041 |
Representative Gerald Torr (R) |
MANDATED BENEFITS |
Allows
certain insurers and health maintenance organizations to provide
a policy or contract without complying with all health benefit
mandates and requires insurers and health maintenance organizations
to report specified information concerning policies and contracts
to the Department of Insurance. Requires insurers to provide
a list of health benefit mandates with which the contract does
not cover provided that the policy offered include the following:
newborn coverage, diabetes related coverage, certain cancer screenings,
adopted child coverage and minimum maternity related benefits. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1183 |
Representative Russ Stilwell (D) |
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Requires
the Department of Workforce Development to not later than 3 weeks
after the date of the filing of an initial or additional claim
for unemployment benefits, make a determination of eligibility
and pay benefits or give notice of a negative determination. Requires
the department to include a bonus payment of 10% of the total
amount due to the claimant if the first payment of benefits is
not made within 3 weeks after the date of filing for benefits. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1185 |
Representative Ryan Dvorak (D) |
FAMILY/MEDICAL LEAVE |
Provides
that an employee who is the victim of a crime can take unpaid
leave from work to attend court proceedings and confer with the
prosecuting attorney concerning the crime unless the employee's
absence would cause significant difficulty or expense to an employer.
Prohibits an employer from reducing employee benefits to an employee
who exercises the employee's rights as a victim, or from refusing
to employ a person who has exercised the person's rights as a
victim. Requires that employment records concerning an employee's
absence be kept confidential. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1200 |
Representative Phil Hoy (D) |
FAMILY/MEDICAL LEAVE |
Provides
that an individual is entitled to take unpaid leave from the individual's
employment to file a petition for an order for protection or,
after receiving notice of a hearing, to attend a hearing. Provides
that an employer that dismisses an employee, deprives the employee
of employment benefits, or threatens a dismissal or deprivation
of benefits because the employee filed a petition for an order
for protection, received notification of the hearing on the petition,
or attended the hearing commits a misdemeanor. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1241 |
Representative Russ Stilwell (D) |
WORKERS' COMPENSATION (GENERAL) |
Increases
worker's compensation and occupational disease benefits.
Increases compensation for permanent partial impairment.
Effective July 1, 2006. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1267 |
Representative Randy Borror (R) |
WORK ENVIRONMENT |
Current
version (January 25) sets procedure for issuance of an employment
certificate for a minor child. Provides that a child may have
more than one employment certificate at a time and specifies that
if so, is subject to civil penalties from the Department of Labor
if the child works more than the allowable number of hours in
a week, or days in a week. Provides that an employer of a child
who holds more than one employment certificate is responsible
only for violations relating to excess hours or days of the week
for the employment of the child. Establishes the interim study
committee on child labor, to study the issuance of employment
certificates; the maximum hours that a child under age 18 may
work in a week; and enforcement of child labor laws. Effective
July 1, 2006. |
Final Enacted |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1288 |
Representative Dennis Avery (D) |
FAMILY/MEDICAL LEAVE |
Establishes
an unpaid leave of absence for the spouse or parent of a person
called to active duty in the United States armed forces or National
Guard for deployment overseas. Provides that the total leave cannot
exceed 15 days for a spouse or ten days for a parent. Requires
an employee to provide notice before taking the leave. Allows
an employer to require a certification from the proper military
authority to verify the employee's eligibility for the leave.
Requires an employee to be restored to the position that the employee
held before the leave or an equivalent position. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1307 |
Representative Gerald Torr (R) |
WORKERS' COMPENSATION (GENERAL) |
Final version
(February 23) requires the worker's compensation board to amend
its schedule for attorney's fees for worker's compensation and
occupational disease claims filed after September 1, 2006. Provides
that the burden of proof of the element of a claim is on the employee,
and that proof by the employee does not create a presumption in
favor of the employee with regard to another element of the claim.
Provides for increases in the: (1) average weekly wage used
to calculate worker's compensation and occupational disease benefits;
(2) schedule for awarding compensation for the degree of permanent
partial impairment determined by the board; and (3) maximum compensation
that may be paid for personal injury by accident or disablement
or occupational disease. Deletes an exception to and revises
the statute of limitations for the making of a modified award
of workers compensation and occupational disease benefits.
Requires an employer to notify an employee of the time limitation
for filing for workers compensation for personal injury by accident.
Effective July 1, 2006. |
Final Enacted |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1324 |
Representative Mae Dickinson (D) |
EMPLOYER FINANCED HEALTH CARE |
Requires
an applicant for or recipient of medical assistance administered
by the state to provide information concerning the applicant's
or recipient's employer or the employer of each person who is
responsible for providing any portion of the applicant's or recipient's
support. Requires the office of the Secretary of Family and Social Services
to submit a report annually to the legislative council that provides
certain information about employers identified by at least 50
recipients of medical assistance. Requires an employer that employs
at least 1,000 employees in Indiana to file an annual report with
the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Labor that provides
certain information concerning the employer's spending during
the preceding calendar year for health care benefits for its employees
in Indiana. Effective July 1, 2006. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1359 |
Representative Dennis Tyler (D) |
WORK ENVIRONMENT |
Requires
certain employers to give written notice before plant closings
and mass layoffs. Requires the employer to provide the written
notice not later than 60 days of the closing or mass layoffs. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 H.B. 1399 |
Representative Matthew Whetstone (R) |
WAGE AND HOUR |
Increases
the minimum wage to $5.65 an hour effective September 1, 2006.
Increases the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour effective March 1,
2007. Increases the minimum wage to $7.00 effective September
1, 2007. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 96 |
Senator Timothy Lanane (D) |
WAGE AND HOUR |
Increases
state minimum wage to $6.15 on July 1, 2006 and $7.15 on July
1, 2007. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 108 |
Senator Michael Young (R) |
WORK ENVIRONMENT |
Requires
that an employer who fails to pay an employee must pay interest
at a monthly rate of 1.5% of the amount due. Provides a procedure
for an employer to deduct up to $200 due to the employer from
the employee from the employee's unpaid wages. Prohibits an employer
from selling merchandise or supplies to an employee of the employer
at a price higher than the employer sells the items for cash to
another person who is not an employee. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 131 |
Senator Allie Craycraft (D) |
WAGE AND HOUR |
Increases
state minimum wage to $5.65 on July 1, 2006; $6.15 on July
1, 2007 and $6.65 on July 1, 2008. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 198 |
Senator Frank Mrvan (D) |
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION |
Provides
that an employer can not discriminate against an employee on the
basis of sex, race, or national origin by paying a wage less than
the wage paid to an employee of another sex, race, or national
origin for work in an equivalent job. Requires an employer to
keep certain records of wages paid to an employee and to provide
certain documentation to the employee, including an annual statement
of how the wages were calculated. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 204 |
Senator Jeff Drozda (R) |
MANDATED BENEFITS |
Allows
certain insurers and health maintenance organizations to provide
a policy or contract without complying with all health benefit
mandates and requires insurers and health maintenance organizations
to report specified information concerning policies and contracts
to the Department of Insurance. Requires insurers to provide
a list of health benefit mandates with which the contract does
not cover provided that the policy offered include the following:
newborn coverage, diabetes related coverage, certain cancer screenings,
adopted child coverage and minimum maternity related benefits. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 223 |
Senator Karen Tallian (D) |
WORKERS' COMPENSATION (GENERAL) |
Increases
compensation for permanent partial impairments under workers compensation.
Effective July 1, 2006. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 250 |
Senator Allie Craycraft (D) |
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Reduces
the qualifying period for unemployment compensation benefits from
eight to four weeks. Provides the certain statutory disqualifications
do not apply to an individual who left one job to take another
job that could reasonable be expected to offer better wages or
working conditions and who is discharged from the second job without
just cause. Provides, for purposes of unemployment compensation
eligibility, that the violation of an employer's reasonable and
uniformly enforced attendance rule can constitute just cause for
discharge unless the individual seeking compensation can show
good cause for the absences or tardiness. Defines "good cause"
to include compelling family obligations, sexual harassment and
financial inability to maintain two residences. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 288 |
Senator Vi Simpson (D) |
EMPLOYER FINANCED HEALTH CARE |
Provides
that the Department of Health may require an individual eligible
for the state Health Security Program to verify that their employer
did not provide access to an employer sponsored health benefits
plan in the twelve month period immediately preceding the eligible
individual's program application. Effective July 1,
2006. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 289 |
Senator Vi Simpson (D) |
FAMILY/MEDICAL LEAVE |
Provides
that certain employees are entitled to up to 30 days leave from
employment for family military leave when the spouse or the child
of the employee is called to active duty in the armed forces of
the United States or the national guard. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 290 |
Senator Vi Simpson (D) |
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Requires
the Department of Workforce Development to make a determination
of eligibility for unemployment benefits and make payment or give
notice of a negative determination not later than 3 weeks after
the claim for benefits is filed. States that an individual who
is otherwise eligible for benefits is not ineligible because the
individual is a part-time worker; or available for or seeking
part-time work as long as the part-time work is for at least
20 hours per week. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 294 |
Senator Glenn Howard (D) |
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION |
Provides
that an employer may not discriminate against an employee on the
basis of sex, race, or national origin by paying a wage less than
the wage paid to an employee of another sex, race, or national
origin for work in an equivalent job. Requires an employer to
keep certain records of wages paid to an employee and to provide
certain documentation to the employee, including an annual statement
of how the wages were calculated. |
Failed |
| Indiana |
2006 S.B. 321 |
Representative Dennis Kruse (R) |
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Final
version (March 14) reduces from 150 days to 30 days the time within
which a successor employer is required to file an application
to assume a predecessor employer's experience account. Establishes
civil penalties for an individual who fails to disclose or falsifies
information to receive a benefit. Provides additional circumstances
in which an administrative law judge or the review board may hold
hearings by telephone. Provides that the department may not disclose
to an employer the current address or location of a claimant who
is the victim of family or domestic violence, and that an employer
or its agent that is aware that a claim has been made shall keep
that information confidential. Effective July 1, 2006. |
Final Enacted |
Federal Legislative Alert!
YOUR SUPPORT IS NEEDED! Please call or write your Senators and urge them to support S 544, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005.
Background
HR professionals are responsible for designing and implementing health benefit plans that meet the needs of an organization’s workforce and its dependents. By leveraging buying power with other purchasers and using information provided through quality initiatives such as S 544, HR professionals can increase demand for better quality care, which will help control the future cost of employee health benefits. As organizations focus on improving the safety and quality of health care, HR professionals will be better equipped to provide for the needs of employees as well as reduce health care costs that are often driven by the additional utilization of health care resources as a result of poor quality care.
Legislation
S 544 would help improve patient safety by creating a voluntary and confidential system for health care providers to report non-identifiable patient information on medical errors to Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), without the fear of legal repercussions. These PSOs would then forward this data to the Department of Health and Human Services, which would catalog the health information and identify regional and national trends in medical errors. This data collection will, in turn, lead to improved patient safety through dissemination of best practices protocols and recommendations.
Action Needed
Write or call your Senators today! This is your opportunity to impact the legislative process at the federal level. To write your elected officials, follow these steps:
1. Log onto SHRM Online
by clicking here.
2. Sign in using your member number and last name.
3. Click on “Governmental Affairs,” then go to “HRVoice”
on the left side of your screen.
4. Choose “Write your elected officials.”
5. Click on “Urge Your Legislators to Support the Patient Safety
and Quality Improvement Act” under the heading “Take Immediate
Action on these Hot Issues.”
Questions? Please contact the SHRM Customer Service Center at shrm@shrm.org or (800) 283-7476 option 3 (US Only), +1 (703) 548-3440 option 3 (Intl.), or TTY/TDD (703) 548-6999.
