by admin | May 3, 2018 | Employee Benefits
Summer internships offer students opportunities to gain real-world experience and hands-on career development. Conversely, internship programs give employers access to highly motivated and educated young workers and give junior managers more experience training and supervising. There are benefits for everyone involved.
However, there are some potential legal and administrative pitfalls that many employers overlook. One of the largest issues is determining what interns should be paid – or not paid.
The Department of Labor issued new guidance on January 5, 2018, that gives employers more flexibility in deciding whether to pay interns. A seven-criteria test is now used to determine if an internship may be unpaid, but the biggest change is that not all factors need to be met – no single factor is decisive, and the determination is made on the unique circumstances of each case.
If the job training program primarily provides professional experience that furthers a student’s educational goals, a student may not be considered an employee entitled to compensation. However, if students are doing work usually done by employees and are not receiving training and close mentoring, they should be paid wages. If there is any doubt, the best approach is to pay the student.
4 Reasons to Pay Interns
However, while it’s now legally permissible to classify more interns as unpaid, there are still compelling reasons to pay interns even when the internship does meet the criteria for unpaid status.
Unpaid internships tend to exclude students from lower- and middle-income backgrounds, who cannot afford not to work at paid jobs during the summer. In addition, they may need to pay up to several thousand dollars for course credit, in addition to coming up with funds for housing, clothing, and transportation related to the internship. This can put internships out of reach for some of the students who can benefit from them the most.
Unpaid internships may devalue the work paid employees are doing. After all, interns are working alongside regular employees — often doing some of the same tasks — and not being compensated for that work. This may send the message to employees that their work, or time, is not valued.
Unpaid internships can create a negative impression of your company. Customers or the community may see you as taking advantage of these students, which is not the message you want to portray. It’s a good community relations move to offer youth paid opportunities.
The work the unpaid intern is doing may actually be work that should be compensable. Improperly classifying an internship and not paying the student could result in wage claims that include back pay, penalties, and fines. To mitigate those risks, once again, the best approach is to pay the student.
Hiring summer students is a great way to help youth learn what it takes to be successful in business while helping employers get special projects completed. Plan ahead and structure your program so that your summer internship program is a great experience for everyone.
by Rachel Sobel
Originally posted on thinkHR.com
by admin | Apr 27, 2018 | Benefit Management, Compliance
“Here’s an update on EEO-1 reporting by Cara Crotty, partner with leading national labor and employment law firm (and ThinkHR strategic employment law partner) Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP.”
The new deadline is June 1, but only for this year.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
announced that it has extended the deadline to submit 2017 EEO-1 report data. The deadline, which was March 31, 2018, will now be June 1, 2018. Although the EEOC provided no explanation, anecdotal reports indicate that the agency was slow to respond to requests for technical assistance, such as adding or removing establishments due to acquisitions and mergers.
Regardless of the reason, employers who were not able to meet the March 31 deadline have a short reprieve to submit their 2017 EEO-1 report data. The extension applies to 2018 only. Next year’s deadline will be March 31, 2019.
Originally Published By
ThinkHR.com
by admin | Apr 13, 2018 | ACA, Benefit Management, Group Benefit Plans
States that permit carriers to renew medical policies without adopting various Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements may continue to do so through 2019, according to a bulletin released April 9, 2018, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The bulletin extends transitional relief for non-ACA-compliant policies for another year. The affected category of non-ACA-compliant policies, available in some individual and small group insurance markets, is commonly referred to as grandmothered.
By way of background, the ACA imposes numerous requirements on health plans. Whether a specific requirement applies, however, depends in part on the type of plan – and grandfathers and grandmothers are not the same.
Grandfathers
First, a grandfathered health plan is one that was established no later than March 23, 2010, when the ACA was enacted. The plan can maintain grandfathered status indefinitely, as long as it does not make certain changes to reduce its benefits or increase the employee’s out-of-pocket costs. Basic ACA rules, such as coverage for children up to age 26 and prohibiting annual and lifetime dollar limits on essential health benefits, apply to all plans. A plan that maintains grandfathered status, however, is exempt from many other ACA rules, such as coverage mandates for preventive care, and small group market rules for essential health benefits and adjusted community rating.
Grandmothers
A grandmothered policy does not have grandfathered plan status. It is an individual or small group policy originally issued before 2014 that has been allowed to renew year after year in accordance with the state’s insurance laws. Grandmothering does not apply to policies issued in the large group market. Most states that permit grandmothering also limit small group policies to groups with up to 50 employees.
Depending on the specific state’s rules, a grandmothered policy may be exempt from various ACA rules that otherwise would have taken effect in 2014, such as required coverage for all categories of essential health benefits and adjusted community rating. Currently about 30 states allow some type of grandmothering for individual policies or small group policies, or both, but the details vary from state to state.
States that allow grandmothering may continue to do so for renewals through October 1, 2019, provided the policy ends by December 31, 2019. Note, however, that even if the state’s insurance laws allow grandmothering, carriers are not required to continue renewing non-ACA policies.
What This Means
In summary, state insurance laws continue to control the options, provisions, and requirements that apply to group policies issued in their state. (Self-funded plans are not subject to state insurance laws.) For information about your state’s current insurance laws, refer to a carrier or broker that is licensed to sell products in your state.
Originally posted on ThinkHR.com
by admin | Apr 11, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Human Resources
When evaluating employee benefits, essentials such as health and dental plans, vacation time and 401(k) contributions quickly come to mind. Another benefit employers should consider involves subsidizing learning as well as ambitions. Grants and reimbursements toward advanced degrees and continuing education can be a smart investment for both employers and employees.
Educational benefits are strongly linked to worker satisfaction. A survey by the Society for Human Resource Management revealed that nearly 80 percent of responding workers who rated their education benefits highly also rated their employers highly. While only 30 percent of those rating their higher education benefits as fair or poor conversely rated their employer highly.
These benefits are popular with businesses as well. In a survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, nearly five of six responding employers offer some form of educational benefit. Their top reasons are to retain current employees, maintain or raise employee satisfaction, keep skill levels current, attract new talent and boost innovation and productivity. Tax credits offer additional advantages. Qualifying programs offer employers tax credits up to $5,250 per employee, per year.
At the same time, companies should offer these benefits with care as they do pose potential pitfalls. Higher education assistance can be costly, even when not covering full costs. Workers taking advantage can become overwhelmed with the demands of after-hour studies, affecting job performance. Also, employers would be wise to ensure their employees don’t promptly leave and take their new skills elsewhere.
When well-planned, educational benefits will likely prove a good investment. Seventy-five percent of respondents to SHRM’s survey consider their educational-assistance programs successful. To boost your employee morale, skill levels and job-satisfaction scores, consider the benefit that may deliver them all, and more.
Find out more:
IFEBP: Why Educational Assistance Programs Work
EBRI: Fundamentals of Employee Benefit Programs
By Bill Olson, VP, Marketing & Communications at United Benefit Advisors
Originally posted on UBABenefits.com
by admin | Apr 6, 2018 | Benefit Management, Employee Benefits, ERISA
The Department of Labor’s new claim rules for disability benefits took effect April 2, 2018. The changes were announced over a year ago, but the effective date was delayed to give insurers, employers, and plan administrators adequate time for implementation. Although we’ve reported on the key issues in this blog previously, now seems like a good time for a refresher on how the new rules affect employer plans.
Affected Plans
The new claim rules apply to disability benefits provided under plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); that is, plans sponsored by private-sector employers. Then the new rules apply if the ERISA plan must make a determination of disability in order for the claimant to obtain the benefit. Group short- and long-term disability plans are the most common examples, but pension, 401(k), and deferred compensation plans also may be affected.
Many plans do not make their own determination of disability, but instead condition the plan’s benefit on another party’s determination. For instance, employer plans that base the benefit on a disability determination made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) are not affected by the new rules.
New Rules
For ERISA plans affected by the new rules, the following additional requirements apply to disability claims filed on or after April 2, 2018:
- Disclosure Requirements: Benefit denial notices must explain why the plan denied a claim and the standards used in making the decision. For example, the notices must explain the basis for disagreeing with a disability determination made by the SSA if presented by the claimant in support of his or her claim.
- Claim Files and Internal Protocols: Benefit denial notices must include a statement that the claimant is entitled to request and receive the entire claim file and other relevant documents. (Previously this statement was required only in notices denying benefits on appeal, not on initial claim denials.) The notice also must include the internal rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or other similar criteria of the plan that were used in denying a claim or a statement that none were used. (Previously it was optional to include a statement that such rules and protocols were used in denying the claim and that the claimant could request a copy.)
- Right to Review and Respond to New Information Before Final Decision: Plans are prohibited from denying benefits on appeal based on new or additional evidence or rationales that were not included when the benefit was denied at the claims stage, unless the claimant is given notice and a fair opportunity to respond.
- Conflicts of Interest: Claims and appeals must be adjudicated in a manner designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the persons involved in making the decision. For example, a claims adjudicator or medical or vocational expert could not be hired, promoted, terminated or compensated based on the likelihood of the person denying benefit claims.
- Deemed Exhaustion of Claims and Appeal Processes: If plans do not adhere to all claims processing rules, the claimant is deemed to have exhausted the administrative remedies available under the plan (unless exceptions for minor errors or other conditions apply). In that case, the claimant may immediately pursue his or her claim in court. Plans also must treat a claim as re-filed on appeal upon the plan’s receipt of a court’s decision rejecting the claimant’s request for review.
- Coverage Rescissions: Rescissions of coverage, including retroactive terminations due to alleged misrepresentations or errors in applying for coverage, must be treated as adverse benefit determinations that trigger the plan’s appeals procedures.
- Notices Written in a Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Manner: Benefit denial notices must be provided in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner in certain situations. Specifically, if the claimant’s address is in a county where 10 percent or more of the population is literate only in the same non-English language, the notices must include a prominent statement in the relevant non-English language about the availability of language services. The plan would also be required to provide a verbal customer assistance process in the non-English language and provide written notices in the non-English language upon request.
Action Steps for Employers
Employers are reminded to work with their carriers, third-party administrators, and advisors to make sure their plans comply with the new requirements. Consider these steps:
- Identify all plans that are subject to ERISA. (Plans sponsored by governmental employers, such as cities and public school districts, and certain church plans, are exempt from ERISA.)
- Does the ERISA plan provide any benefit based on disability? If so, is the benefit conditioned on a determination of disability made by the plan or by another party, such as Social Security?
- For insured plans, such as group STD and LTD insurance plans, the carrier generally is responsible for compliance with ERISA’s claim rules. The employer, however, does have a duty to make reasonable efforts to ensure the carrier is complying.
- For self-funded plans, the employer is responsible for compliance. Although the employer may engage the services of a third-party claims administrator, the employer remains responsible for the plan’s compliance with all rules.
Originally Published By ThinkHR.com
