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.

Should it become law, it would be the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since Medicare and Medicaid came along.

But first, it must be merged with the $1 trillion plan the House approved in November.

When will it be ready for Obama’s signature?

Democrats hope both chambers can strike a deal and a have finalized bill ready for President Obama’s signature early next year — around the time of his State of the Union address.

As they stand now, both the House and Senate bills would:

• subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually
• create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase coverage at a lower price, and
• prevent companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.

However, the question of how to pay for health reform is a big roadblock standing in the way of finalized legislation.

Currently:

• the House bill would be financed through an income tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions, and
• the Senate bill would impose a 40% tax on insurance companies that provide “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

We’ll keep you posted.

President Obama just signed a bill extending the federal COBRA subsidy by six months. It goes into effect immediately.

The nine-month, 65% premium subsidy has been extended to a total of 15 months.

Plus, the subsidy is available to employees or dependents who lose coverage under a group health plan (as the result of an employee’s involuntary termination of employment) through Feb. 28, 2010 — changed from Dec. 31, 2009.

The legislation also provides an additional six months of subsidized coverage for those whose initial nine-month subsidy has run out.

And beneficiaries whose subsidy ran out, and who didn’t pay the full premium, even have a second chance to opt for coverage.

Example: Employees whose subsidy period ran out Nov. 30 — and who couldn’t come up with the full insurance premium for December — can pony up their 35% share in January and get retroactive coverage for December.

New guidance has been issued by the Department of Labor to end the confusion surrounding COBRA subsidy eligibility.

While the feds are offering up a 65% nine-month COBRA premium subsidy to workers involuntarily terminated in the period between Sept. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2009, some who lost their jobs during that time won’t be eligible.

What would keep a terminated employee from being eligible for COBRA? Being covered by their former employer’s health plan through Dec. 31, 2009.

As a result, the worker wouldn’t be eligible for COBRA until Jan 1, 2010 — just missing the cutoff for the subsidy.

On the other hand, if the person was terminated by Dec. 31 and was eligible for COBRA, he or she could receive the subsidy for a full nine months — even if that nine-month period extends well into 2010.

Two bills have been introduced to extend and even expand the COBRA subsidy, but the fate of the legislation remains unclear.

A bill was introduced last week that, if passed, would require employees to provide at least five paid sick days to workers with a contagious illness who are sent home or told to stay home.

Workers deciding to stay home on their own, claiming to be sick, would not be guaranteed paid sick days.

The legislation, called the Emergency Influenza Containment Act, was introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. It would apply to businesses with 15 or more employees and would take effect 15 days after being signed — and expire after two years.

Reason for the bill: Miller says he’s concerned that more than 40 million workers don’t have paid sick days.

What are the chances of sickness spreading? A sick employee reporting to work infects one in 10 co-workers, says to the Centers for Disease Control.

Currently, 39% of all private-sector workers don’t have paid sick days, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And out of the lowest 25% of wage earners, 63% don’t have paid sick days.

Hearings on the bill have been scheduled for next week.

As with the previous bills, the Healthy Workforce Act of 2009 currently enjoys bipartisan support. The reason why it has failed before has been disagreement over how to pay for the tax credit, and the inclusion of more controversial healthcare reform proposals.

Let us know how you feel – vote below to register your opinion of the bill.

The plans that would be affected would be those that exceed the value of the standard plan offered to federal employees (currently about $13,000 a year for a family of four). An employer-provided plan worth less than that level would remain tax-free,  while any benefit exceeding the cap would be taxed as part of an employee’s compensation.

Such a tax, if adopted, would likely be phased in over the course of several years.  A higher tax threshold and exemptions for unions would make the tax more politically viable but would diminish the amount of  revenue it would raise to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Last month, a congressional committee discussed repealing the tax deduction allowed for certain large medical expenses or creating a tax on flexible savings accounts and health reimbursement accounts . A more dramatic proposal — taxing half of all employer-provided health premiums -was also discussed but is unlikely to get out of committee.

Meanwhile, President Obama  has suggested a limit on the value of itemized tax deductions for families earning more than $250,000 a year.

Democrats in both the House and Senate have pushed for government-sponsored insurance for people who have trouble finding coverage through an employer or individually. The idea is adamantly opposed by most Republican legislators.

Almost 1,200 HR managers responded to our poll about how they view the employment policies of President Barack Obama, and how those policies will affect HR. Here’s what they said, and here are 10 relevant pieces of legislation that probably will come into play in 2009.

The poll, and how they responded:

Do you think President-elect Obama’s policies on employment law will:

• Make your job more difficult — 69%
• Have no effect on you — 22%
• Make your job easier — 9%

Some comments:

“Please share the results of this poll with Obama and his staff. They need to try and fully understand the implications of their impending actions on this country.”

“I do believe that Obama’s policies will have a profound and accelerated degredation of an already overburdened and undersupported function…Human Resources.”

“Everyone enjoy[s] working here, the company provides excellent benefit, fully paid POS health insurance with tier-one carrier, Safe Harbor 401K, annual cash bonus with average of 6.6% annual salary increase, stock options. We did not need Federal government to tell us how to treat employee[s].”

What’s coming in ‘09
Here’s a rundown of the employment legislation that’s likely to cross the new president’s desk:

• Paycheck Fairness Act: Among other changes to the Equal Pay Act,  the legislation proposes that, for the purpose of demonstrating pay discrimination, a plaintiff can use compensation comparisons of employees who do not even work at the same physical place of business.
• Working Families Flexibility Act: Expands an employer’s obligations when an employee requests a change in hours or venue to accommodate family needs.
• Employee Free Choice Act: A proposal to make it easier for employees to form a union.
• RESPECT Act: Redefines the term “supervisor” in certain industries, thereby making some supervisors eligible for union membership – and empowered to act in the best interests of the unions and not the employer.
• Patriot Employers Act: Awards tax credits and other benefits to employers who, for instance, keep their operations from moving overseas and offer health insurance to their employees.
• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Changes the statute of limitations on how far back and employee can go to file a pay-discrimination suit against an employer.
• Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Would provide protections to gay, lesbian and bisexual workers against employment discrimination similar to the protection provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• FMLA Expansion Act: Would expand coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act to companies with at least 25 employees, as opposed to the 50-employee minimum in the current law.
• Healthy Families Act: Proposes that any company with at least 15 employees would required to provide paid sick leave.
• Civil Rights Act of 2008: A far-reaching piece of legislation that would amend a number of employment laws affecting, for instance, discrimination charges involving age and pre-employment tests, and changing the rules under which disputes can go to arbitration.

HR’s new function: Standing up to workplace bullies. What used to be considered a good idea may now become law. 

And here’s the big problem: Someone is going to have to referee and figure out who’s a bully and who’s just a big pain in the butt who should be ignored. In short, you may have to play Civility Cop. That’s the assessment of attorneys who are looking at the proposed anti-bullying legislation, which in effect demands that employees play nice with one another.

Let’s look at the type of scenario that could pop up:

A white manager supervises a black employee. The white manager is a crusty type who criticizes the black employee in public, maybe even loudly uses insults like “stupid” and “lazy.” Under anti-discrimination laws, the black employee had no legal recourse — the law doesn’t demand that managers be civil to their employees.

But under proposed legislation, the employee could charge with manager with bullying — and charge the company with allowing it, unless you step in.

Start now
Your best bet: Start now to head off any bullying charges. For instance –

• Have policies in place that make it clear bullying behaviors will not be tolerated.
• If you have an employee handbook, emphasize in it that workers must treat each other with respect.
• Encourage employees who feel bullied to report the conduct, just as they would report charges of harassment or discrimination, and investigate those complaints seriously.
• If an investigation warrants it, take appropriate action.

Here are the states that are looking at anti-bullying legislation:

• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Kansas
• Massachusetts
• Missouri
• Montana
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Vermont
• Washington

 And here’s sample legislation from New York.