Spurred by reports that the E-Verify system has glaring holes (see ), lawmakers are looking at bills that would require all workers to produce ID cards that verify eligibility to work in the United States. The cards would have photo IDs and some sort of biometric info, such as a fingerprint.

Some particulars of the bill:

• People currently employed wouldn’t be required to obtain a card unless they switch jobs.
• Requirements would start with designated industries  that rely heavily on illegal immigrants in their work force.
• Enforcement eventually would be phased in for all worker in all industries.

But it would eventually reach tens of millions of Americans, including citizens and immigrants, who are holding jobs legally.

What chance does such a bill have to become law? Congress is hearing a bunch of complaints that could become insurmountable obstacles:

• Cost and inconvenience. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns about the costs to employers and potential difficulty checking the biometrics. Card scanners would cost employers between $700 and $800. The bill’s proponents say small employers could be exempt from purchasing scanners and instead send applicants to government offices.
• The “creepy factor.” Getting Americans to latch on to the idea of a scannable ID card is a tough sell. Privacy advocates won’t buy in.
• Amnesty. Some in Congress want to tie approval of a card system to amnesty for illegal workers, who would be required to turn themselves in an obtain an ID card. The word “amnesty” tends to lead to a loss of support for any type of immigration bill.

Loss of privacy is also a primary concern of those who fear the card will develop into a national identification system able to track Americans.

“We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Consider the statistics from a Society of Human Resource Management survey on relocation expenses:

• 17% of respondees said they had eliminated corporate-relocation programs entirely.
• 25% froze their corporate-relocation programs.
• 58% reduced their corporate-relocation programs.

Another trend: A lot of companies are paying a flat amount for relocation — often capped at $10,000. Another changing trend. Many companies used to have mortgage-reimbursement programs for relocating new hires who had to take a financial hit on the sale of a home. That one’s going away or under strict caps. The few companies still doing it are limiting mortgage help to $10,000 to $20,000, and that’s usually only for high corporate jobs or hard-to-fill positions.

A whopping 72% of workers age 60 or older are putting off retirement because they feel they can’t afford to retire, according to a new Harris Interactive/CareerBuilder study.

And it appears women are more likely to stay on the job than men — 76% of women said they plan to work longer because they can’t afford to retire, compared to 68% of men who said they’ll stay in the workforce.

Luckily for most (71%) of those who want to keep working, they enjoy their job and don’t want to leave.

Some other reasons older works say they want to stay on the job:

• To collect health insurance or other additional benefits they need (50%)
• They think retirement will be too boring (24%), and
• They enjoy feeling needed (15%).

The research was conducted by Kelly Services, Inc, between October 2009 and January 2010 — in the teeth of the recession. It essentially asked 134,000 people to describe their level of loyalty to their employers, and how that level had changed with the dire economy. Here’s how the employees responded:

• 27% said their level of loyalty to their employers had gone up as a result of how the employers treated workers during the tough times — and not necessarily because of increases in pay and benefits.
• 10% said employer reaction and treatment of employees during tough times had lessened loyalty to the company.
• 63% said their level of loyalty stayed the same.

The apparent lesson: Employees sympathize that times are difficult and employers have to make tough choices. Employees don’t sympathize when they perceive that companies are taking advantage of the times to mistreat workers who, because of the job market, are afraid to look elsewhere.

The bottom line: The job market will get better. And when it does, companies that handled employee relations with integrity will have the edge.

In opinion letters and other rulings, the DOL has set out six ironclad rules for taking on interns. A violation of any of those rules could cost your company in fines and legal fees:

1. There should be actual training involved, similar to what an intern would get at a vocational school. To fully cover the training stipulation, many firms write out detailed training plans, including goals and objectives for the trainee.

2. The training is mainly for the benefit of the trainee, and not just for the company.

3. Trainees do not displace regular employees.

4. The company that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded.

5. There is no agreement or requirement that trainees will receive a job after completion of the training period. That doesn’t preclude companies from hiring trainees; it just means there can’t be a promise of employment before or during the training period.

6. The organization and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

Note: Legal advisers suggest that you avoid terms such as “hire,” “job,” “employee” or “employer” in documents associated with an intern program.

Because the House added “pay as you go” budgetary provisions, it now goes back to the Senate for approval. But one of the main provisions made it through the House unscathed.

A payroll tax holiday

The bill would give employers that hire new workers a break from paying the 6.2% Social Security tax on new hires’ wages for 2010.

But there is one catch — to get the tax break, anyone hired must have been unemployed for 60 days or more. Plus, the new hire can’t be related to the business owner and must replace someone who leaves voluntarily or is terminated for cause.

The bill would also provide a $1,000 income tax credit in 2011 for every new employee who stays on the payroll for a least a year.

In a vote that look place largely along party lines, the bill passed by a narrow tally of 217-201. The Senate is expected to take it up again this week.

We’ll keep you posted.

Legislators’ reasoning goes like this: If someone’s out of work and consequently piling up debts, how is that person supposed to climb out of a hole when those very same debts make the person unemployable?

Following that reasoning, Congress is looking at a bill that would ban the use of credit checks as a hiring tool.

Already, 16 states have proposed such bills or have some sort of ban in place

States looking at legislation: Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin.

States that have legislation in place: Hawaii and Washington; Oregon has passed legislation that will take effect July 1, 2010.

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-TN, has introduced a similar legislation in Congress.

Note: Just about any existing or proposed legislation doesn’t ban credit checks for jobs in financial fields or where potential employees might have access to company funds or financial records.

They help boost retention and presenteeism, too.

Forty-five percent of employees said they stay at their jobs because of the wellness benefits their employers offer, found a recent survey by the Principal Financial Group.

What do employee like most about wellness programs?

• On-site fitness facilities (27%)
• Fitness center discounts (23%), and
• Weight-management programs (19%).

Another reason employers may want to consider jumping on the wellness bandwagon: 26% of employees say they miss fewer days of work when they participate.

A new McKinsey Quarterly study revealed the following actions can help improve performance as much as (if not more than) cash incentives:

• praise from direct supervisors
• attention from company leaders, and
• opportunities to lead projects.

In fact, the study found that the supervisors getting the most from their workers in this economy are the ones praising workers, delegating responsibilities and staying in constant contact.

But the study also made sure to point out one thing: These actions only work for employees who are satisfied with their current pay.

The quick answer is: It seems to be legal — so far — but that depends on what state you do business in. Consider:

• Federal anti-discrimination laws don’t protect smokers. So the Feds’ approach is it’s up to the employer.
• There are 16 states that do have laws prohibiting employment decisions, such as hiring, based on the tobacco habits of a candidate. (But those laws usually don’t prevent employers from making life miserable for their workers who smoke — banning smoking in the workplace or charging more for health coverage are pretty much legal.)
• In most states, your official application can contain a question asking if the applicant smokes. You might ask that to make determinations about the cost of health coverage. What if the applicant lies by checking the “no” box on the application? You might be justified in using the lie to refuse to hire or to later fire the person if hired. Laws vary from state to state on that one.
• At least one employer has tested the waters and refuses to hire smokers. Memorial Hospital in Chattanooga, TN, doesn’t hire new employees who use any kind of tobacco products, on or off duty. How does the hospital do it? Nicotine screenings are part of Memorial’s standard drug test for new hires.