#securecheck360 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

securecheck360 · 5 years

Text

Washington State Increases Minimum Salary, Fee and Hourly Rates for White Collar Overtime Exemptions

The Washington Department of Labor & Industries announced its final rule amending Washington States’ white-collar overtime exemption regulations on 11th December 2019. If not overridden by the legislature or successfully challenged in court, the rule will thoroughly increase the pay rates necessary to qualify for the white-collar exemptions in Washington State.

The first major impact on salaries for the executive, administrative and professional exemptions will occur on 1st January 2021. That is when the new minimum Washington salary will first exceed the new 2020 minimum salaries under the federal Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA). The rate will then ramp up to a projected $83,356 per year in 2028 (including estimated consumer price index (CPI) adjustments), after which annual CPI adjustments will be applied.

The hourly paid computer professional exemption will change on 1st July 2020. The minimum pay rate will jump from $26.63-hour to $37.13-hour for employers with more than 50 employees in Washington. This will rise to $47.25-hour, plus CPI adjustments, for all employers by 2022, after which annual CPI adjustments will be applied.

The regulation also amends the white-collar duties tests to confirm to the FLSA duties tests, but with some differences remaining. The amended duties tests will be effective on 1st July 2020.

Salary, Fee Rates for the Executive, Administrative and Professional Exemptions

For the executive, administrative and professional exemptions, the new minimum salary basis and fee basis rates are:

Date

Minimum Salary/ Fee Rate

(More from 50 Washington Employees)

Minimum Salary/ Fee Rate (50 or Fewer Washington Employees)

1st July 2020

1.25 X Washington Minimum Wage

($35,100/year)

($675/week)

{The new rate under the FLSA effective 1st January 2020, is $35,568/year, or $684/week)

Same implies for larger employers

1st January 2021

1.75 X Washington Minimum Wage

($49,140/year + CPI)

($945/week + CPI)

1.5 X Washington Minimum Wage

($42,120/year + CPI) ($810/week + CPI)

1st January 2022

1.75 X Washington Minimum Wage

($49,140/year + CPI)

($945/week + CPI)

Same as for larger employers

1st January 2023

2.0 X Washington Minimum Wage

($56.150/year + CPI) ($1,080/week + CPI)

1.75 X Washington Minimum Wage

($49,140/year + CPI)

($945/week + CPI)

1st January 2024

2.0 X Washington Minimum Wage

($56,160/year + CPI) ($1,080/week + CPI)

Same as for larger employers

1st January 2025

2.25 X Washington Minimum Wage

($63,180/year + CPI)

($1,215/week + CPI)

2.0 X Washington Minimum Wage

($56,150/year + CPI)

($1,080/week + CPI)

1st January 2026

2.25 X Washington Minimum Wage

($63,180/year + CPI)

($1,215/week + CPI)

Same as for larger employers

1st January 2027

2.5 X Washington Minimum Wage

($70,220/year + CPI)

($1,350/week + CPI)

2.25 X Washington Minimum Wage

($63,180/year + CPI)

($1,215/week + CPI)

1st January 2028

2.5 X Washington Minimum Wage

($70,220/year + CPI)

($1,350/week + CPI)

same as for larger employers

The new salary rates are defined in the rule as a multiple (e.g., 1.25 X) of Washington’s minimum wage rate for 40 hours of work per week. For 2020, Washington’s minimum wage is $13.50 per hour. For 2021 and thereafter, it will automatically be adjusted upward each January 1, if there has been an increase in the CPI.

The new FLSA salary minimum for 2020 and thereafter permits employers to satisfy up to 10% of the minimum level with non-discretionary variable pay. Washington did not adopt this rule. As such, employers that plan to pay salaries in 2020 of less than $35,100/year in reliance on the credit for non-discretionary variable pay will have to raise salaries in Washington State to $35,100 by 1st July 2020 if they wish to maintain exempt status.

The Washington rule’s text states that the highest salary rate of 2.5 X minimum wage is effective for all employers in 2026, not in 2027 and 2028, as this has been stated by the Department of Labor and Industries in multiple publications and announcements.

Hourly Rates for the Hourly Computer Professional Exemption

For the hourly computer professional exemption, the new minimum hourly rates are:

Date

Minimum Hourly Rate

(More from 50 Washington Employees)

Minimum Hourly Rate

(50 or Fewer Washington Employees)

1st July 2020

$37.13/hour

(vs. the FLSA rate of $27.63/hour)

$27.63/hour

(matched the current WA and FLSA rates)

1st January 2021

3.5 X Washington Minimum Wage ($47.25/hour + CPI)

2.75 X Washington Minimum Wage ($37.13/hour + CPI)

1st January 2022

3.5 X Washington Minimum Wage ($47.25/hour + CPI)

Same as for larger employers

Teachers & Academic Administrators

The professional exemption for teachers will now require payment on a salary or fee basis, but without mandating a minimum pay rate. The FLSA does not specify a form or minimum amount of payment for exempt teachers.

The administrative exemption for academic administrators will permit a salary that is at least equal to the entrance salary for teachers in the particular educational establishment involved. The FLSA does not include this provision, so the FLSA salary minimum pay will also have to meet the criteria to obtain an exemption from overtime under federal law.

Changes to the White-Collar Exemption Duties Tests

The new rule brings the Washington State duties tests for the white-collar exemptions (executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales) generally into conformity with the FLSA duties tests, but subject to a few differences.

Washington has no highly compensated exemption. This is a continuation of existing Washington law.

For the outside sales exemption, Washington is retaining its unique requirement that the employee be advised of their status as an outside salesperson.

For the outside sales exemption, the text of the final Washington rule continues the Washington requirement that the outside salesperson’s nonexempt work must not exceed 20% of a normal nonexempt workweek (typically 8 hours per week). This appears to be an error in the final rule, as this provision was shown as deleted in the proposed rule (for conformity with FLSA), and the Department’s explanatory statement does not mention any change on this score from the proposed rule.

The Department did not expressly incorporate into the Washington rule of the guidance that exists in the FLSA duties test regulations. As to the portions not incorporated, the Department’s explanatory statement says, “this guidance was not included in the text of the adopted state rule. The Department intends to rely on the interpretations of the current federal regulations, where terms are identical”.

Outside Salespeople

Washington’s outside sales exemption retains key features different than federal law. Currently, Washington’s new rule keeps the current requirement that the outside salesperson’s nonexempt work must not exceed 20% of a normal nonexempt workweek (typically eight hours per week), although it was initially deleted in the draft rule. This may change. Employers must also continue to advise employees under the exemption of their status as an outside salesperson as well as meet other requirements of the test.

Regarding pay rates, Washington’s law still does not require a minimum pay rate for this exemption. It does, however, continue to require that employers pay outside salespeople on a guaranteed salary, commission or fee basis.

Few Other Differences

Washington still does not recognize an overtime exemption for “highly compensated” individuals. This is consistent with existing law. So-called highly compensated individuals must still meet the duties tests for one of Washington’s overtime exemptions.

The teacher’s professional exemption for teachers will now require payment on a salary or fee basis, although there is no required minimum pay rate. For academic administrators, the exemption now permits a salary that is at least equal to any teachers’ entrance salary at the same education establishment where they work.

Plan in Advance

Washington employers should begin planning to avoid legal liability for misclassification and to ameliorate significant financial impacts of these changes. Some steps to consider:

Ø Take this opportunity to make sure that each employee is classified properly. Make a list of all employees, noting each employee’s classification as either “exempt” or “non-exempt”. This will involve analysis of both the weekly salary paid as well whether the employee meets the duties test for the relevant exemption.

Ø Identify employees who will need to be reclassified from the “exempt” to “non-exempt”, because they are or will be are paid less than the requisite amount or no longer meet the relevant “duties test”.

Ø Calculate the financial feasibility and costs of raising these employees’ pay to the new threshold level to make them “exempt” versus reclassifying them as “non-exempt” and paying overtime.

Ø If a reclassification is necessary, prepare meaningful employee communications. This includes management training, sharing necessary changes in company policies, presenting a unified message on how and why changes are going to be implemented, and positive individual communications to reclassified employees who will now need to keep track of their hours worked, take required breaks and may have a chance to their benefits. Cooperating with an employee background verification team will be added advantage.

Ø Seek legal advice. The new rules are complex, and the employers who do not adhere to them strictly may be liable for serious financial penalties, including an unpaid overtime claim under Washington law.

Securecheck360 will monitor further developments to keep our clients with up to date knowledge of changing laws and implementations, so employers should ensure you are subscribed to Securecheck360 to gather the most relevant business information.

This Legal Alert provides an overview of a specific state law. It is not intended to be, and should not be constructed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, because Securecheck360 is not law firm.

#washington #employee #salary #increase #securecheck360 #employers #employees #advantages #reimbursement #exempted #nonexempt #hike

6 notes · View notes

securecheck360 · 4 years

Text

How to Maintain a Robust Workforce during a Pandemic

Healthcare centers and other essential businesses looking to maintain operations, as well as restaurants and retailers eyeing the quickest possible comeback, are running up against a tough question: How do we maintain staffing in a pandemic?

Many workers are understandably reluctant to risk their health for a pay-check, but their on-going wariness about reporting to work has put their employers in a bind, attorneys grappling with this.

Businesses can entice workers with hazard pay, take a hard line and let workers go, or step up safety measures to assuage their fears and limit their exposure to COVID-19. But exactly what an individual employer should do – and whether it will work – depends on their unique circumstances. Just to give employers the lay of the land and discuss the situation and what they may be willing to do or not to do. They are just not a good answer here for some.

The rapid spread of the coronavirus has forced many employers to close, either because customers stopped showing up or because they are subject to government shutdown orders. But healthcare centers, grocery stores, and other essential businesses have stayed open, and many have struggled to get their workers to show.

At first, businesses were willing to accommodate their worker’s concerns. Many told workers who were afraid to report to paid time off or take unpaid leave. But as the crisis drags on, this arrangement has led to unworkable staff shortages.

Several health care employers that are struggling to maintain staffing. Surprisingly, these clients have not had trouble getting workers to report to the intensive care unit or emergency room, where workers come into direct contact with the virus. Rather, the most reluctant workers have been those hospitals have redeployed from other, closed areas to answer phones or take blood samples in busier units. Likewise, laundry, cafeteria, and other support workers have been wary about coming in during the crisis.

· These employers have tried to limit direct patient contact, provided protective equipment, or shifted hours so workers can avoid the subway during rush hours. But many workers still avoid coming in.

· These employers right now have been patient for past weeks and are at their wits’ end at this point- they do not have many options left.

· The employers looking to bring back workers they laid off or furloughed earlier in the crisis may also face difficulties.

· Low wage service workers often make much of their money through tips, which have dwindled during the pandemic, and the recent emergency aid package has further altered the risk-benefit analysis for workers.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act provide $600 per week to workers that have lost their jobs because of the pandemic. Combined with their regular benefits, which are about half of their salaries in many states, workers earning at or near the minimum wage may have seen their incomes increased as double. All this makes returning to low-paid work for $7.25 an hour, employees and employers both are in a kind of tough spot together.

· Employers have several options to get employees back to work, but none of them are sure.

· Staffing and human resource professionals advising clients to sit down with reluctant workers to hear their concerns and allay their fears. But, if this does not work out, they may have no choice but to fire or furlough them and find replacements. Unfortunately, many unemployed people that we have not heard that many employers are having difficulty finding replacement workers.

· These options pose some risks, however, not only can this hurt the employer’s relationship with the employee, the worker may file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or being a lawsuit. To one extend the employers are following the government’s coronavirus safety guidelines, it probably will not be penalized. Still, most would rather not face an OSHA probe.

· If replacement workers are not readily available – or if employers would prefer to avoid the risks that come with letting workers go – they can offer so-called hazard pay to entice workers back in. But that is only viable if the employer has extra money. It can also be a slippery slope.

Employers can also encourage workers to come in by making operational changes to reduce their exposure to the virus. Rather than blindly deploying workers to house calls, some companies have started calling ahead to see if anyone is sick. Instead of announcing their arrival by knocking on customer doors, technicians will call or text. Companies may ask that only one member of the household interacts with the technician and those others wait in a separate area of the house. And if the technician must be face-to-face with a customer, they do so at a preferred distance.

By taking such measures, you are being as reasonable and as careful as possible to make sure you are not exposing this employee unnecessary. Companies that are struggling to bring back laid-off workers should explore “work-share programs”. About half of the states have these programs, which let workers collect unemployment benefits while on shortened schedules.

An employer should be mindful of their affirmative obligations to protect certain workers under disability discrimination laws. If a worker has a disability that makes them susceptible to COVID-19, the employer must provide a “reasonable accommodation” for their condition, to the extent that is feasible. Maybe unpaid leave is a reasonable accommodation for that person, or maybe it is just a matter of surrounding that person in Plexiglas or moving them to a different part of the building- it depends.

Businesses can be at risk for the activities of an unexpected worker similarly it may be obligated for the activities of ordinary representatives. Employers are required to know whether and when an individual from their all-encompassing workforce is inadequate or any case unfit for business.

Millions of U.S. workers are now filing for unemployment; the pool of workers is increasing. Ensuring that you are staffing for the most essential positions first is critical to success. By having a clear understanding of the workers that are needed and their job duties, employers can streamline their employee screening process.

We provide the most accurate, customized, and expeditious background screening services. We focus on essential personnel and talent selection processes, done in accordance with existing Federal and State laws and better business practices. Through expert guidance and support, we will empower our clients to make their best business decisions.

For more details, reach us at www.securecheck360.com

Mail – [email protected] or call us – 855-955-4777

#pandemic #guidance #securecheck360 #employers

1 note · View note

securecheck360 · 5 years

Photo

How to audit your employee screening process for 2020

#securecheck360

3 notes · View notes

securecheck360 · 5 years

Text

How to Audit Your Employee Screening Process for 2020

Audits are important to employers for several reasons. They can help improve processes that may be out-of-date. They can alert HR managers and business employers of activities that could be illegal, costly or potentially risky to the organization. Concerning human resource exercises, audits are fundamental due to interaction with the public, in the case of applicants, employees or clients. Recruiting and hiring employees is highly focused and regulated. Employers must be aware of the risk of litigation, before, during and after hiring.

Recent years have brought significant changes to the regulatory and legal environment of employment background screening. With EEOC and FCRA related litigations on the rise and a record-breaking $4.4 million settlement in the transportation industry for failing to provide candidates with their rights involving records used during the hiring process, there has never been a more pertinent time for organizations to audit employee screening process.

Regular employment screening audits help to ensure the arrangement of business screening practices with changes in employment law. These audits shores up gaps, identify opportunities for process improvement, help protect organizations from exorbitant suit, and eventually make an organization’s workforce stronger and safer.

Here are Few Tips on How to Audit Your Employee Screening Process

Ø Work with an Accredited Consumer Reporting Agency

Background screeners who pledge to standards prescribed by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) have proven expertise, positive compliance history, and system in place to align with the latest employment regulations, making them a valuable asset to your organization. Association with NAPBS gives you a level of trust and accreditation is an important seal of approval that organizations should look for when partnering with a background screening provider. Less than 2% of consumer reporting agencies achieve accreditation. The experienced elite earns accreditation through a rigid and important approval process.

Ø Determine the Extent of Attorney-Client Privilege

Any information gathered during an audit could potentially be utilized in future litigation. Working with in-house counsel at the beginning of an audit can help determine if any work in progress documentation or subsequent changes will be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Ø Involve Cross-Functional Stakeholders

While an organization’s employee screening process traces everyone in the organization as part of the hiring process, particular stakeholders who can provide valuable insights for an auditing exercise. Including representatives from human resources, legal, compliance, security and operations will provide a well-rounded perspective and ensure alignment with other corporate-wide initiatives.

Ø Assign an In-House Expert

While auditing, it is beneficial to designate at least one employment screening expert. This expert will stay abreast of the complex issues surrounding background screening and employment law. In-house experts should work closely with the organization’s background screening partner and internal teams to ensure full compliance with Federal, State, and Local employment laws. In addition, these designated experts should provide regular updates about pending and recent changes that impact the screening process.

Ø Include All Locations

Organizations with multiple locations have additional communication and their employee screening process audit needs to address. Representative stakeholders from each location should be a part of the audit process. In addition, these location-based representatives should serve as ambassadors for implementing necessary updates at their respective locations. Few organizations will choose to centralize these efforts through corporate offices. Other businesses might allow field offices to make the final hiring determinations. In any case, the key to compliance comes from streamlining processes and establishing clear communication channels for disseminating important updates to everyone involved.

Ø Show Consistency

A self-audit can also help to identify potential gaps in the current employment background screening program. Proactive associations cannot just discover approaches to improve the screening the procedure, yet also correct any paperwork errors, such as I-9 mistakes, which could be expensive in the event of a Federal audit. Employers who require obligatory drug screening must assure that their policies and approaches for employee selection, notification, and testing are consistent, randomized, and non-discriminatory.

Ø Manage and Mitigate Risks

Determine precisely the right level of background screening that meets your employment criteria and workplace safety standards, so that your organization remains consistent with all the applicable regulations and is still able to hire the best talent. If the employer thinking of adding several layers of extra screening access whether there is any true risk mitigation benefit. If not, consider an increasingly streamlined program going forward.

Due to the constant changes in the nature of laws, regulations, and technology engaged in the background screening process today, performing your own proactive “pre-audit” is not as excessively cautious as it may sound from the recommendations above. Background screening oversights can result inexpensive fines from regulators, judgments from litigation, or damage to your brand in the case of newsworthy class actions.

These are the few tips of the best processes, organizations should consider when auditing their employee screening practices. It will assist organizations in focusing their efforts and bringing together the right support team.

Securecheck360 provides actionable insights you trust. If you would like to review your background screening program for compliance, please reach us at [email protected] or give us a call at 855-955-4777.

#audit #employeescreening #securecheck360 #employment

3 notes · View notes

securecheck360 · 5 years

Text

DOT CBD Notice

The U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance Publishes DOT CBD Notice through its List Serve on February 18, 2020:

The attached notice on Cannabidiol (CBD) was received by Securecheck360 compliance through the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance E-Mail List Serve. The information pertains to DOT-regulated employers but the comments may be useful to non-regulated employers as well since they are often concerned about CBD impacts on their drug testing programs.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a memo answering common questions about the use of CBD products for safety-sensitive workers.

On 18th February 2020, the DOT shared a notice intended to clear up confusion about the use of CBD products by safety-sensitive employees in the transportation industry, including pilots, train engineers, and truck drivers.

DOT reminds workers that is never acceptable for safety-sensitive employees who are subject to drug testing regulations to consume marijuana.

Workers are also warned to use caution if they do decide to consume CBD.

Since the use of CBD products could lead to a positive drug test result, the Department of Transportation-regulated safety-sensitive employees should exercise caution when considering whether to use CBD products.

The notice outlines three major points about the use of CBD by safety-sensitive workers:

Ø The Department of Transportation requires testing for marijuana and not CBD.

Ø The labeling of many CBD products may be misleading because the products could contain higher levels of THC than the product label states. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not currently certify the levels of THC in CBD products, so there is no Federal oversight to ensure that the labels are accurate. The FDA has cautioned the public that: ‘Consumers should beware purchasing and using any CBD products’. The FDA has stated: ‘It is currently illegal to market CBD by adding it to a food or labeling it as a dietary supplement’. Also, the FDA has issued several warning letters to companies because their products contained more CBD than indicated on the product label.

Ø The Department of Transportation’s Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulation, Part 40, does not authorize the use of schedule ‘I’ drugs, including marijuana, for any reason. Moreover, CBD use is not a legitimate medical explanation for a laboratory-confirmed marijuana positive result. Therefore, Medical Review Officers will verify a drug test confirmed at the appropriate cutoffs as positive, even if an employee claims they only used a CBD product.

For more information on how CBD could affect your CDL, check out the below link:

ODAPC_CBD_Notice

#cbd #dot #transport #securecheck360

2 notes · View notes