<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Feds launch nationwide I-9 audit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/</link>
	<description>Your daily dose of HR</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:43:22 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: K. Hamm</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-18529</link>
		<dc:creator>K. Hamm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-18529</guid>
		<description>Margaret -- I scan all I9&#039;s to Acrobat format as part of the hiring process. It&#039;s OK to do that and keep them in that format instead of paper. Process uses our copier/scanner to e-mail them to me and I archive them to CD once a year right after our big hiring push. The CD goes into a file and takes up a lot less space than the paper would. Also a LOT easier to find specific individuals that way. Sorting&#039;s easier too. And if we get audited, I can burn a copy for the auditors rather than hauling out stacks of paper (then re-filing them).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Margaret &#8212; I scan all I9&#8217;s to Acrobat format as part of the hiring process. It&#8217;s OK to do that and keep them in that format instead of paper. Process uses our copier/scanner to e-mail them to me and I archive them to CD once a year right after our big hiring push. The CD goes into a file and takes up a lot less space than the paper would. Also a LOT easier to find specific individuals that way. Sorting&#8217;s easier too. And if we get audited, I can burn a copy for the auditors rather than hauling out stacks of paper (then re-filing them).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-18202</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:46:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-18202</guid>
		<description>Tanya,

I think you are right, I am misunderstanding the guideline.  Thank you for the interpretation, now I do understand why they have 3 years in as a guideline.  I was thinking why do they have 3 years in their when you really have to keep them until one year after termination.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tanya,</p>
<p>I think you are right, I am misunderstanding the guideline.  Thank you for the interpretation, now I do understand why they have 3 years in as a guideline.  I was thinking why do they have 3 years in their when you really have to keep them until one year after termination.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tanya</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-18100</link>
		<dc:creator>Tanya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-18100</guid>
		<description>Anne, I think you&#039;re misunderstanding the retention guideline.  It is 3 years or 1 year after termination, whichever is  longer.  In other words, if you have an employee who is only with your company for 6 months, you would be required to retain the original Form 1-!-9 for an additional 2 and a half years after termination (to equal a full three years), NOT one year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anne, I think you&#8217;re misunderstanding the retention guideline.  It is 3 years or 1 year after termination, whichever is  longer.  In other words, if you have an employee who is only with your company for 6 months, you would be required to retain the original Form 1-!-9 for an additional 2 and a half years after termination (to equal a full three years), NOT one year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shell</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-17951</link>
		<dc:creator>Shell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-17951</guid>
		<description>Margaret, I keep the I-9&#039;s for current employees alphabetically in one binder, and the terminated employees in another.  I sort the term&#039;d employees I-9&#039;s alphabetically by the date that I can toss the form.  I figure out the retention date and write that really small on the bottom of the form, and file them away.  That way, I can go through it every few months and it&#039;s easy to toss the ones I don&#039;t have to keep any more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Margaret, I keep the I-9&#8217;s for current employees alphabetically in one binder, and the terminated employees in another.  I sort the term&#8217;d employees I-9&#8217;s alphabetically by the date that I can toss the form.  I figure out the retention date and write that really small on the bottom of the form, and file them away.  That way, I can go through it every few months and it&#8217;s easy to toss the ones I don&#8217;t have to keep any more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Margaret</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-17889</link>
		<dc:creator>Margaret</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:24:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-17889</guid>
		<description>Has anyone identified the best method for storing and retaining I-9&#039;s?  With the retention period of three years after the date of hire or one year after they terminate, I&#039;m confused how to best store these.  Should we keep binders by year of I-9&#039;s for all new hires?  I&#039;m looking for suggestions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone identified the best method for storing and retaining I-9&#8217;s?  With the retention period of three years after the date of hire or one year after they terminate, I&#8217;m confused how to best store these.  Should we keep binders by year of I-9&#8217;s for all new hires?  I&#8217;m looking for suggestions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-17866</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-17866</guid>
		<description>I follow the laws but I think the wording on the retention of I-9&#039;s is misleading.  Why would it say I-9&#039;s must be stored for 3 years after the date you hire an employee when in reality you must keep them until one year after they terminate employment?  They could be employed for thirty years and retire and you must keep that I-9 for one year after they retire.  Am I the only one having a problem with this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I follow the laws but I think the wording on the retention of I-9&#8217;s is misleading.  Why would it say I-9&#8217;s must be stored for 3 years after the date you hire an employee when in reality you must keep them until one year after they terminate employment?  They could be employed for thirty years and retire and you must keep that I-9 for one year after they retire.  Am I the only one having a problem with this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thehrconsultinggroup &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Government plans Nationwide I-9 Audit</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-17848</link>
		<dc:creator>thehrconsultinggroup &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Government plans Nationwide I-9 Audit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:11:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-17848</guid>
		<description>[...] Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to implement nationwide audit of employer I-9s.   ICE announced that it’s drawing up Notices of Inspection to review the I-9 records of 652 employers — names not released yet. In some instances, the notices will include subpoenas for records such as quarterly wage reports, EINs, business licenses, correspondence from Social Security Administration regarding no-match letters, and payroll data.  Employers whose I-9-related records don’t pass muster with ICE will then receive Notices of Intent to Fine. ICE officials also said the audit is just a “first step,” so employers probably can expect more audits and inspections.   Tags: audit, employers, I-9s, payroll, records Posted under Uncategorized by hrsource [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to implement nationwide audit of employer I-9s.   ICE announced that it’s drawing up Notices of Inspection to review the I-9 records of 652 employers — names not released yet. In some instances, the notices will include subpoenas for records such as quarterly wage reports, EINs, business licenses, correspondence from Social Security Administration regarding no-match letters, and payroll data.  Employers whose I-9-related records don’t pass muster with ICE will then receive Notices of Intent to Fine. ICE officials also said the audit is just a “first step,” so employers probably can expect more audits and inspections.   Tags: audit, employers, I-9s, payroll, records Posted under Uncategorized by hrsource [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SrHRGuy</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-17836</link>
		<dc:creator>SrHRGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-17836</guid>
		<description>Exactly Pat.  Our company practices good, solid hiring policies as well, and if ours is a company chosen, I&#039;m confident that we&#039;ll pass any examination.  It&#039;s the companies who knowingly violate the law or don&#039;t follow up on their &#039;no-match&#039; letters who should be concerned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly Pat.  Our company practices good, solid hiring policies as well, and if ours is a company chosen, I&#8217;m confident that we&#8217;ll pass any examination.  It&#8217;s the companies who knowingly violate the law or don&#8217;t follow up on their &#8216;no-match&#8217; letters who should be concerned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-17830</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-17830</guid>
		<description>Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry are livid!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry are livid!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sally Cupka</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/feds-launch-nationwide-i-9-audit/comment-page-1/#comment-17813</link>
		<dc:creator>Sally Cupka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:05:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=3131#comment-17813</guid>
		<description>Good to know</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good to know</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
