New Rules Will Entitle Many "White Collar" Workers to Overtime Pay

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued new rules governing overtime pay which will automatically extend eligibility for overtime pay to an estimated 4.2 million workers. Under the new rules, which will take effect on December 1, 2016, most salaried workers earning less than $913.00 a week ($47,476.00 annually) will be entitled to collect overtime pay. This newly prescribed salary level is more than double the current amount ($455.00 per week or $23,660.00 per year) at which workers generally are considered exempt from the overtime rules.

A brief summary of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is useful in understanding what is going on here. The FLSA mandates that employers pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) for all hours worked and overtime pay at the rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. Certain categories of employees are exempted from coverage under the Act, including doctors, lawyers and teachers. In addition, the FLSA exempts from coverage employees who are engaged in an "executive, administrative or professional capacity". Such workers have been historically referred to as "white collar workers". The Act itself, however, does not define the terms "executive", "administrative" or "professional", leaving it to the DOL to issue regulations defining the scope of these exemptions.

The current DOL rules require that an employee meet each of the following three tests in order to fall within the white collar exemption:

(1) he/she is paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction for the quality or quantity of work performed (the "salary basis test");

(2) the amount of the employee's salary meets a minimum specified amount (the "salary level test"); and,

(3) the employee's duties involved executive, administrative or professional duties, as defined in the DOL's regulations (the "duties test"). The recently issued rules impact the second of those tests, the "salary level test".

So, beginning December 1, when the new rules take effect, most of the white collar workers earning less than the "standard salary level" of $913.00 per week will be entitled to overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a given work week. That will be the case regardless of whether these employees meet the other two tests for the white collar exemption. This standard salary level was determined in accordance with the 40th percentile of earnings of full time salaried workers in the lowest wage region in the country, currently the South. The standard salary level will hereafter be subject to adjustment every three years, again, by reference to the 40th percentile of full time salaried workers in whatever is then the lowest wage region in the country.

Employers will be allowed to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (such as commissions) to satisfy up to ten percent of the standard salary level, provided these payments are made on a quarterly or more frequent basis.

Lastly, the new regulations also impact those who are considered to be "highly compensated employees" (HCE) under the Act. Currently, employees whose annual earnings are $100,000.00 or more are generally exempt from the overtime rules, even if they don't meet the "duties test." When the new rules go into effect, the applicable dollar amount to qualify as an HCE will increase to $134,004.00.

The DOL estimates that approximately 4.2 million workers who are currently considered exempt under the FLSA will become entitled to overtime in the first year of implementation of these new rules. That number is expected to swell to more than 5 million workers within ten years of implementation. An additional 65,000 HCEs are estimated as being eligible for overtime in the first year following the rules change, with 200,000 being affected within ten years.Clearly, many employers will be impacted by these changes and employers are well advised to become knowledgeable to how these new rules will affect their payroll practices.

Are You A Mandatory Reporter In New South Wales?

In New South Wales, Australia, the Department of Family and Community Services (the Department) is responsible for statutory child protection, which includes maintaining a system to receive reports about children who have been harmed or who are at risk of being harmed. Under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), a mandatory reporter includes a person who delivers services to children, or who has a management role in relation to the delivery of services to children. The full definition can be seen at section 27(1) of the Act. This is a very wide definition that includes most medical doctors, dentists, child psychologists and psychiatrists, counsellors who work with children, child protection caseworkers, police officers, hospital workers, school teachers and early childhood care workers, and other employees of schools and pre-school institutions. Providers of residential services to children are also in scope. In addition, the managers of institutions that provide any of these kinds of services are likely to be mandatory reporters, as are some non-practitioner employees who come into contact with children when providing support to professional colleagues or services to children directly. If you are uncertain about whether you are a mandatory reporter, you should take steps to find this out. Breaching the Act, by failing to make a required report, can lead to professional misconduct charges being laid against a mandatory reporter. On the positive side, section 29 of the Act provides that making a report is not a breach of ethical standards, even though it involves disclosing confidential client information. Mandatory reporters who make a report to the Department are protected from professional misconduct charges, defamation proceedings, and civil proceedings in relation to the report, and the reporter's identity is protected in most circumstances. A NSW Court of Appeal decision in 2014 upheld the protection of reporters' identities, and noted that the purpose of section 29 is to protect good faith reporters' identities "for the obvious reasons that persons... referred to in such reports may [otherwise] visit consequences on the reporter and the prospect of that occurring may deter or inhibit persons from making reports." This protection of a reporter's identity, and the other protections under the Act mean that mandatory reporters can confidently report their suspicions when a report is required, knowing that the source of the report is unlikely to become known to persons named in the report.

When is a report required? A report to the Department (usually made to the Child Protection Helpline, telephone 132-111 in New South Wales) is required if a mandatory reporter, in the course of his or her work, has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child (or a particular grouping of children) is at risk of significant harm. The critical terms here are "reasonable grounds", "suspect", and "risk of significant harm." Risk of significant harm requires more than just risk of harm generally, and might be expected to involve a risk of physical, psychological or developmental harm that could potentially have long-term consequences, including the risk of a child being killed or abducted or requiring hospital treatment. Mandatory reporters should always be alert to the possibility of a child being at risk of harm, and use forensic judgment to determine whether the suspicion is based on reasonable grounds. Important indicators of possible risk may include unexplained injuries, the child having heightened anxiety or fearfulness, domestic violence in the home, or parental misuse of drugs or alcohol. The Department has a comprehensive manual - The "New South Wales Mandatory Reporter Guide" - which includes a structured decision-making system to help mandatory reporters make decisions about their suspicions of risk to children. Risk of significant harm reports are critically important to the Department's work, and the Department relies on mandatory reporters to be the Department's eyes and ears in identifying children who may be at this level of risk. Reports from mandatory reporters can be linked with other reports and information held by the Department, to enable risk to be evaluated and addressed appropriately. A single report is rarely the trigger for intervention on its own, unless the report identifies a critical event such as actual harm to a child, but through the aggregation of multiple reports and other information in hand the Department can build up a comprehensive picture of a child's situation and the risk factors that are present for the child. Some risk factors seen in isolation might not justify any action, but multiple factors can lead to risk being reassessed and the child's case being given a higher priority. For example, the Department might initially receive reports about a family being transient or homeless, which of itself might not require immediate action by the Department (the parents may just need time to sort out accommodation), but if those initial reports are followed by reports of domestic violence between the parents, drug use by the parents, or the children being unfed or physically mistreated, the matter will be looked at more closely by departmental caseworkers. Where a report alleges physical or sexual abuse of a child, the report is likely to be passed to the Joint Investigation Response Team (J.I.R.T.) covering the area where the child lives, so that an investigation can be carried out quickly to ensure the child is protected from harm and any perpetrator of such abuse is prosecuted if a crime has been committed. J.I.R.T. staff are drawn from Department, NSW Police and NSW Health, to facilitate joint investigations of offences against children.

While it may be uncomfortable for a professional person to disclose patient or client confidences, the law is clear about the obligations of mandatory reporters. This has been the law in NSW since 1978, and most other states of Australia for more than 20 years. There can be a fine line between risk of harm and risk of significant harm, but reporters should not err on one side or the other - for example, reporters should not adopt an "if in doubt report it" attitude - because the obligation to report only arises where risk of "significant" harm is suspected. It is a matter for the mandatory reporter to consider whether his or her suspicions are based on reasonable grounds, and point to the child being at risk of significant harm. The Department receives well over 100,000 relevant reports each year, and reporting other (non-significant) situations to the Department can impact on the Department's ability to quickly assess and allocate more serious cases for attention. Where the risk of harm does not reach the threshold level, resources are available to guide reporters about how to best deal with these kinds of situations. The Department's website has a lot of material, and professional associations also issue guidance to members. If this information does not answer a specific question, a lawyer who is experienced in child law cases will be able to provide helpful advice.

Common US Employment Law Violations

There are many people in the United States that have excellent, fair employers - yet there are also those whose workers' rights are violated each and every year in regards to underpayment, overtime and rest break violations. For this reason, it is important to know your rights and find a great employment law attorney.

There are several employment law violations that are more common that others in the US, and the first one of these is lack of overtime payment. The particular law that applies will depend on the state, but in some cases, employees can be told that they are not entitled to overtime payment when they actually are.

In all cases, workers are entitled to overtime payment if they do not meet all the of a particular overtime exemption's requirements. Furthermore, some people may be compensated for overtime, but this sum may be far lower than the amount that they are legally entitled to. In this case, finding a good unpaid overtime lawyer is an ideal solution.

In addition to the lack of overtime payment or the miscalculation of overtime payment that disadvantages the employee, there are other common employment law violations which employees need to be vigilant of. One of these is failure of the employer to give additional pay when it is required by law.

This does not only apply in regards to overtime, but also in other situations when an employee is legally entitled to be compensated for not taking an unpaid meal period - working instead due to the employer's demands - or not taking other legally required rest breaks. In some state law, workers are entitled to extra pay in these situations.

If you are an employee who frequently is required to skip rest breaks or unpaid meal breaks, then it is strongly recommended to seek the assistance of a unpaid overtime lawyer who will be able to provide you with guidance. This is one way of assuring that you know your rights and will be able to assert them for you and your family's benefit.

Another common violation of employment law is that statutory employees are classified instead as "independent contractors", which denies them a number of rights that they should be entitled to. These rights include minimum wage, overtime and a variety of other protections provided by state and federal law.

This miscalculation can be a genuine error on the part of the employer, but it can also be a calculated business move that severely disadvantages the worker. Again, seeking the advice of an employment attorney or a unpaid overtime lawyer will help clear up this issue and help each determine whether they have been misclassified as an independent contractor.

Lastly, employees may be entitled to certain rest breaks and meal times which the employer does not provide. There may also be failure to provide vacation pay, all of which result in the employee receiving far less than they deserve at the unjust benefit of the employer. Again, if the employee suspects their rights are being violated, it is advised to seek legal help.

These are just a few of the most common violations of workers' rights in the US - from lack of overtime pay to miscalculation of employee status, these will also have a huge effect on the lives of employees and their families. This can mean less income, fewer breaks and longer hours than is legally allowed.

It is important for every worker in the country to know their rights and to seek professional help in defending them when necessary. This ensures a fairer workplace and one where employees can work safely and securely and be adequately financially compensated for their contribution to the company that they work for.

How to Preserve At-Will Employment

California has at-will employment, meaning that either the employer or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause, reasons, or notice.

But the at-will presumption can be negated by express or implied agreements to the contrary. In addition, an employer may not dismiss an employee for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. As a result of these exceptions, employers often find themselves subject to claims by terminated employees.

An employer can adopt various strategies to maintain at-will treatment and protect itself against wrongful termination lawsuits. Following are some key do's and don'ts:

DO Include Repeated At-Will Statements

Job applications, offer letters, employee manuals, performance evaluations, and other employment-related materials all should clearly and prominently state the at-will policy. The policy should be restated next to any provisions that might be interpreted as conflicting with an at-will arrangement. For example, any list of reasons in an employee manual as to why an employee may be discharged should be accompanied by a disclaimer that the list is not exclusive and that the employment always remains at-will. It is hard to repeat the at-will policy too many times.

DON'T Give Assurances of Job Security

An employer should train its managers to not unwittingly make verbal statements to employees that might be interpreted as contradicting at-will employment, such as:"If you continue to do fine work like this, you can look forward to a long and successful association with the Company," or"As long as you do a good job, you will always have a home here."DON'T Have Probationary Periods or Permanent Employees

Use of a "probationary" period for new employees arguably creates an inference that an employee can only be terminated for good cause once he or she has satisfactorily completed the period. An initial phase of employment instead should be referred to as an "introductory," "orientation," or "training" period. In addition, employees who complete the introductory period should be referred to as "regular" rather than "permanent" employees."DON'T Have a Progressive Discipline Program

A progressive discipline policy arguably creates an implied contract between the employer and the employee, requiring the employer to follow all the steps in the policy before discharging an employee. The practical result is that the employee can no longer be summarily terminated, as would otherwise be permissible with at-will employment.

DO Be Mindful of Anti-Discrimination Laws

An employer should take special care before discharging someone who is a member of a protected class (e.g., based on race, age, ethnicity, or disability), or whose termination might be viewed as in retaliation for a protected act (e.g., whistle-blowing). In such cases, an employer must be prepared to establish good cause for the termination, notwithstanding the general presumption of at-will status.

Is At-Will Employment A Myth?

California law provides for at-will employment unless there is an agreement to the contrary. As a result, an employer may believe it is free to terminate an employee at any time and for any reason or no reason.

The reality is far more complicated. A variety of limitations and exceptions to at-will employment have built up over time. An employer who decides to fire a worker should not have a false sense of security that the at-will doctrine will protect it against a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Implied Agreement

At-will employment can be negated by an implied agreement to not discharge an employee without good cause. Written or verbal representations by the employer of continued employment, other statements by the employer that create an expectation of job security, or the establishment of a progressive disciplinary policy can create such an implied agreement.

Discrimination

An employer may not dismiss an employee because of his or her race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation. Because the protected characteristics are so numerous, one or more of them are likely to apply to most employees. Thus, an employee frequently will be in a position to at least claim that a termination is based on illegal discrimination.

Public Policy

An employer may not dismiss an employee in violation of a fundamental and substantial public policy. Such cases generally involve terminations based on an employee:   

Refusing to break the law at the request of the employer;   

Performing a legal obligation;   

Exercising a constitutional or statutory right or privilege (e.g., seeking a reasonable accommodation for a disability; taking lawful medical, pregnancy, or family leave; filing a workers' compensation claim); or   

Complaining about or reporting a legal violation (e.g., employment discrimination, sexual or racial harassment, wage or overtime violations, workplace safety violations).

Burden of Proof

The at-will doctrine is further undermined by how the burden of proof is allocated in wrongful termination lawsuits. The employee has the initial burden of establishing that

(1) he or she is in a class protected by the "discrimination" or "public policy" principles discussed above, and

(2) there is some causal connection between his or her protected status and the employment termination (e.g., the termination occurred shortly after the employee filed a workers' compensation claim or complained about employment law violations). If the employee satisfies that burden, then the burden shifts to the employer to put forward a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.

In light of these limitations, "at-will employment" often may be more a myth than a reality. An employer therefore must follow carefully designed employment practices to lessen the risk that it will be successfully sued by a terminated employee.

When to Hire an Unemployment Attorney

Losing your job is hard enough. Your missing income hurts not just your pride, but also your bottom line. While it might feel counterintuitive to pay an unemployment attorney when you're already short on cash, it could, in fact, be a great decision.

Unemployment paperwork might seem very simple and straightforward. In some states, you can even do the paperwork online. While each state requires differing information, all states require basic information like name, date of birth, and work history. You also have to give a reason for your unemployment. If you have been unemployed through no fault of your own, the state will quickly process the form, and you should begin receiving your benefits within a few weeks. However, there are several reasons why you might want to contact an unemployment attorney in order to gain access to your benefits.

Your Benefits Are Improperly Denied

If you have already been denied benefits, you have the right to appeal the decision. You have to file the appeal in writing and then attend a hearing. You may be able to phone into the hearing, but your presence is still the only way for the state to hear your side of it. A lawyer can help you prepare all the documents for the hearing. Correctly prepared documents can make the difference between winning the appeal and losing it.You Were Fired

Unemployment is for those who are out of a job through no fault of their own. That means if you leave voluntarily or if you were fired for a serious reason, you won't be eligible. In order to determine if your reasons for leaving a job qualify you for benefits, you must fill out paperwork and attend a hearing. How your facts are presented to the panel will determine whether or not you are able to receive benefits. Your unemployment attorney can help you fill out the paperwork appropriately and present your case effectively in order to help you gain access to the benefits you need.

You Have Legal Claims Against Your Former Employer

There are times in which you may have a legal claim against the employer who released you from your job. If your legal rights have been violated by this employer, a lawyer can help you bring a suit against him or her. Some examples include being laid off due to race, gender, or sexual orientation. Other reasons to bring a suit against your former employer may include being fired for reporting violations of health and safety codes to the appropriate authorities. An unemployment attorney can look at the facts of your case and determine if you have enough evidence to proceed with a suit against a former employer. If the case is good, not only can a lawyer help file for state benefits but they can also help prep any other civil suit you may want to bring against the company.

4 Important Things About An Expatriate Work Permit In Indonesia

What You Need To Know About The Expatriate Working Permit In Indonesia?

Article 1 (13) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower ("Manpower Law") defines Foreign Workers ("Expatriates") as visa holders of foreign citizenship who come to Indonesia with the intention to work within Indonesia's territory. Expatriates are foreign workers who live outside their native country and settle abroad, e.g. in Indonesia. Employers looking to hire Expatriates to work with them in Indonesia must ensure that the Expatriates have acquired a complete set of Expatriate Work Permit as stipulated by the Ministry of Manpower in Indonesia.

In this article, we will elaborate on 4 (four) important things that all Employers hiring and/or in the process of hiring Expatriates must know and understand:

1. Who can be a Sponsor for a Work Visa?

Only the following entities are allowed to be a sponsor for the Expatriates in Indonesia:

• Government Institutions, International Bodies, Foreign State's Representatives;

• Representative Offices of foreign chambers, foreign companies, or foreign news;

• Foreign Direct Investment Companies (Penanaman Modal Asing or PMA);

• Legal entities which are established based on Indonesia's laws or foreign business entities which are registered in authorized institution in Indonesia (ie. Foreign Representative Office);

• Social, religious, educational, and cultural Institutions; and

• Entertainment organizer (impresariat) business services.

Entities in the form of civil association, firm, limited partnership, business partnerships, and individual persons are prohibited to employ and/or act as the sponsor for Expatriates unless stipulated otherwise by the Laws and Regulations.

DKP-TKA Payment Obligation for Employers / SponsorsEmployers or sponsors are required to pay Expertise and Skill Development Fund ("DKP-TKA") in the amount of USD 100/month (USD 1200/year) for each Expatriate hired to work in Indonesia. DKP-TKA are paid in full at the beginning of the Working Permit application procedure in Indonesia Rupiah (IDR), for the employment period that has been approved by the Minister of Manpower.

The following employers or sponsors are not required to pay DKP-TKA:

• Government Agencies/Institutions;

• International Agencies (e.g. WHO, ILO, UNICEF, etc.);

• Representatives of Foreign Countries;

• Social Institutions; and

• Religious Institutions.

2. Prohibited Positions for ExpatriatesThe following are the reasons why Expatriates work in Indonesia:

• As the Owner of sponsor company (Investor/Shareholders) and/or to act as a member of the Board of Executives in the company (ie.: President Director/ Director);

• As Experts on certain skills, for the transfer of knowledge to Indonesians.

Please be informed that Indonesia Law regulates the Expatriates are not allowed to hold certain positions in Indonesia. These prohibited positions are mostly in the field of Human Resources Development (HRD), such as Personnel Director, Human Resources Manager, and HRD-related Supervisors. The full list of prohibited positions for expatriates is stipulated in the Minister of Manpower Decree No. 40 of 2012 ("Manpower Decree No. 40/2012").

Other than the prohibited positions listed on Manpower Decree No. 40/2012, there are other positions prohibited for Expatriates who work in certain fields, such as in the Oil and Gas Industry.

Prohibition for Expatriates to hold Multiple PositionsAccording to article 41 of Minister of Manpower Decree No. 16 of 2015 ("Manpower Decree No. 16/2015") Employers are not allowed to double post Expatriates in multiple positions, such as:

• Employ Expatriates for dual positions, whether both positions are within the same company, or in different companies;

• Employ Expatriates who are currently employed by other Employers

.Exempted from the double posting prohibtion are Expatriates who work as members of the Board of Directors, or the Board of Commisisoners.

3. The Procedures to Obtain the Work Permits

Every employer that employs Expatriates is under an obligation to obtain written permission from the Ministry of Manpower ("Work Permits"). The following are the Procedures to obtain the Work Permits in Indonesia:

Permits to be held by the Sponsor Company:

• Foreign Workers Recruitment Plan (Rencana Penggunaan Tenaga Kerja Asing or "RPTKA");

• Telex Vitas;

• Foreign Worker Recruitment Permit (Izin Memperkerjakan Tenaga Kerja Asing or "IMTA");Permits to be held by the hired Expatriate:

• Limited Stay Visa (Kartu Izin Tinggal Terbatas or "KITAS");

• Multiple Exit / Re-Entry Permit ("MERP");

• Registration Letter (Surat Tanda Melapor or "STM");

• Temporary Stay Registration Letter (Surat Keterangan Pendaftaran Penduduk Sementara or "SKKPM");

• Arrivals Permit Card (Kartu Ijin Pendatang or "KIJ"); and

• Arrival Reporting Evidence Letter (Lapor Kedatangan or "LK").

Data required from the sponsor company at the beginning of the procedure consists of the planned:

(1) name of sponsor company;
(2) business domicile of the company;
(3) name of head of the company;
(4) job of Expatriates;
(5) job description of Expatriates;
(6) number of Expatriates hired;
(7) work location of hired Expatriates;
(8) period of Expatriates employment;
(9) wage of Expatriates;
(10) start of employment;
(11) number of Indonesian workers hired in the sponsor company;

(12) the appointment of Indonesian workers as Expatriates companion; and
(13) training program for the Indonesian workers.

4. Obligations to Obtain Other Licenses for Expatriates

After a certain period of time, Expatriates working in Indonesia are required to obtain other licenses in order to comply with their obligations as stipulated in the Manpower Decree No. 16 of 2015. The obligations are as follows:

• Tax Compliance

Article 36 of Manpower Decree No. 16 of 2015 requires Expatriates who have worked for more than 6 (six) months in Indonesia to obtain Taxpayer ID Number (Nomor Pokok Wajib Pajak or "NPWP"). NPWP functions as tax compliance for legal subjects in Indonesia.

• Local Insurance Policy

Article 36 of Manpower Decree No. 16 of 2015 requires Expatriates to have an insurance policy in an insurance company that is currently established in Indonesia as an Indonesian legal entity.

• BPJS or Social Security Agency Registration

Since the issuance of Law No. 24 of 2011 on Social Security Agency, Expatriates who have worked for at least 6 (six) months in Indonesia are also required to participate in the National Security System. Employers must register their employee at the Social Security Agency (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial or "BPJS") under 2 (two) security programs: Employment and Health.

Unemployment Attorney Tips: Avoiding Discrimination

For employers, it is crucial to remain aware of unemployment discrimination. Failing to consider a potential employee only because he or she has gone a long time without a job is considered discrimination and is unlawful. An unemployment attorney can provide insight as to which federal and state laws apply to actions that might be considered discriminatory.

What the Law Protects

While there is no current federal law that prohibits discrimination against those with no work history, an applicant can still file a claim at the time of their interview or application if they feel as if they are being treated unjustly due to their employment history. Applicants may also retain an unemployment attorney to assist them, which can be detrimental to a business owner or employer.

A disparate impact charge is when the employer uses the lack of employment for a block of time as the only reason for not giving an applicant a fair chance in a position. This can be seen as a blanket policy used to screen out applicants who are not currently working. If the unemployment attorney can prove that a company is using a disparate impact charge, this can be cause for legal action.

States That Prohibit Unemployment Discrimination

There are only two states that currently prohibit this practice: Oregon and New Jersey. These states have passed laws making it illegal not to hire someone who is unemployed if they are otherwise qualified for the position. Because of the laws in these two states, employers may not post any job advertisements that prevent hiring anyone who is not currently working. Each state has its own policies, so it can be helpful to find out which ones will take steps against a company if a complaint is filed.

As an employer, having a good awareness of federal employee laws and rights is imperative. Without this, the company can be at risk of facing legal trouble. While some people make claims of unemployment discrimination with no success, a good unemployment attorney can often be successful in winning a case for his or her client. Knowing about the laws in the state in which business is conducted can prevent any future lawsuits for the employer. A good screening practice to consider is not to use work history as the sole reason for choosing applicants. Be also sure to consider other parts of the application such as educational history or special skills.

The Importance Of Privacy In Your Workplace

These days courts are facing a lot of issues concerning decisions made on an employer's right to know against the employee's right to privacy. Employer interests seem to conflict with the employee's privacy rights these days. Individuals are paid for their productivity, however in recent times there is a lot of apprehension of time wastage especially with net surfing and social networking. This sometimes leads to liabilities for an employer by means of circulation of inappropriate material and causing viruses to be downloaded. This leads to loss of precious time and money. The employees on the other hand find employers very invasive as they keep following and monitoring their every move.

A lot many privacy-invasive techniques are used these days that include but not limited to computer software that trace movements, monitoring of telephones and emails. Other ways are taken up as well that pertains to credit checks, background checks, circuit surveillance, location tracking etc.

A few of these modes are discussed below.

Monitoring the computer

The work habits of the employee can easily be tracked with the computer. Employees can be monitored anytime as the boss has access to the computer network and the terminal. Computer software available can help track any kind of internet usage, mails and even keystrokes.

Email

The intranet and email system of a company can be accessed by the boss with no trouble at all. An employer can choose to monitor any mail that goes or comes to the employee. Mail systems have backups and so even the erased mails remain in the system to be accessed later.

Call monitoring

Telephone conversations can be tracked and monitored provided the employee shares his consent to the employer. The organization needs to ensure the employee is aware of the procedure wherein the calls are monitored.

Dialed telephone numbers

A pen register allows recording the telephone numbers dialed by the employee. The numbers dialed along with the length of each call can be viewed with this provision.

Tracking location

A location tracking software can be used for this purpose. Any movement by the employee through the workplace can be detected. This is used primarily for security purposes. This way the employer is able to check the time a person spends on doing each task.

Apart from people who have some form of misconduct to their names, others can opt to choose their right to privacy. Certain rights are outlined below.

· Background checks

An employer needs to keep the employee informed about such checks and also requires consent before going forward with the checks.

· Going through personal stuffPersonal belongings cannot be checked in the workplace.

· Disclosing employee information is offensive.

Though it is very obvious that some of these measures are extreme, all said and done you are being paid for productivity and that should be your main concern. That said all these measures shouldn't affect you much as a responsible employee

Statutory Severance in British Columbia

Under the BC Employment Standards Act (the "Act") an employer must give an employee compensation for length of service in the event of a termination without cause.

Employers can also discharge this liability by giving employees written notice or a combination of pay and written notice.

Minimum termination pay under the Act

Section 63 of the Act requires the following compensation (or notice) to be given when an employee is terminated without cause:

• After 3 consecutive months of employment - an amount equal to one week's wages, or one week's written notice, or a combination of the two.

• After 12 consecutive months of employment - an amount equal to two weeks wages, or two weeks written notice, or a combination of the two.

• After 3 consecutive years of employment - an amount equal to three weeks wages plus one additional week's wages for each additional year of employment to a maximum of 8 weeks wages. (The employer can discharge this obligation by giving written notice or a combination of written notice and pay).

Rules about notice   

After an employer gives notice of termination under the Act, an employer cannot change the employee's conditions of employment without the employee's consent.   

The notice period cannot coincide with an employee's vacation.   

Notice cannot be given when an employee is on an approved leave of absence.   

Vacation pay is payable on compensation for length of service.

When compensation for length of service is not required

An employer is not required to give compensation for length of service or to give written notice of termination in the following circumstances:

• the employee resigns or retires

• the employee is dismissed for just cause

• the employee is working under an arrangement whereby the employer can request the employee to come to work at any time for a temporary period and the employee can accept/reject one or more of the temporary periods

• the employee is employed for a definite term

• the employee is employed for specific work which is to be completed within a period of up to 12 months

• it is not possible for the employment contract to be performed due to an unforeseeable event or circumstance (except for receivership or insolvency)

• the employee is employed at one or more construction sites and the employer's principal business is construction

• the employee has been offered and has refused reasonable alternative employment• the Act does not apply to the employee

Common law notice

Sometimes employers forget that common law reasonable notice obligations apply even if the Act does not require notice. For example:

• The Act does not require an employer to provide compensation for length of service if the employment is for a definite term. However, if an employer terminates an employee prior to the end of a fixed term contract, the common law requires an employer to pay out the balance of the term, unless the contract provides for some other period of reasonable notice.

• The Act does not require an employer to pay compensation for length of service to an employee who is excluded from the application of the Act. Nevertheless, these employees must be given notice in accordance with the common law requirement to provide reasonable notice.

Unjust Dismissal Under the Canada Labour Code

In Canada, the common law permits an employer to terminate an employee without cause as long as the employee is given reasonable notice of termination or payment in lieu.

If an employee is not given reasonable notice or payment in lieu and claims a wrongful dismissal, a court will not concern itself about the "justness" of the dismissal. Instead, the court will determine what the reasonable notice should have been and will award damages accordingly.

In the case of federally regulated employees, the situation is different.

Canada Labour CodeFederally regulated employees are subject to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code (the "Code") and section 240( 1) of the Code permits a federally regulated employee who is dismissed to make a written complaint to an inspector if the employee feels that the dismissal is unjust.

An employee who makes a complaint under section 240(1) must:

• have completed 12 consecutive months of employment;

• not be subject to a collective agreement; and

• must not be excluded due to managerial status.

Unjust Dismissal

The concept of unjust dismissal under the Code is different from, and broader than wrongful dismissal.

Under the Code, a person can make a written complaint regardless of whether he or she is paid severance or given notice in lieu. Consequently, a dismissal can still be "unjust", even if an employer has given the dismissed employee notice or pay in lieu of notice. This is because the underlying purpose of unjust dismissal is to protect the personal dignity and autonomy of an employee in termination situations.

In order for a termination to be found to be "just", an employer's decision must be:

• rational;

• made in good faith;

• made in a non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory manner; and

• made in a procedurally fair manner

The unjust dismissal provision does not apply in situations where an employee is laid off as a result of shortage of work or a discontinuance of the job function. Nevertheless, a dismissed employee can challenge the elimination of the position itself i.e., an employee can allege that the real reason for the dismissal was simply to get rid of him or her.

Remedies for Unjust Dismissal

The remedies available to an adjudicator who concludes that a dismissal is unjust includes the authority to reinstate an employee. Other remedies include, ordering the employer to pay damages or making any other equitable order that will remedy the unjust dismissal and protect the personal dignity of the employee.

Employer Tips

While it may not be possible to prevent an employee from filing an unjust dismissal claim, employers can take steps to minimize a finding that a dismissal is unjust by:

• having a fair reason for the termination and telling the employee the reason or reasons for the termination, preferably in writing;

• acting reasonably and following a fair procedure when dismissing the employee;

• giving the employee as much notice as possible;

• not using lack of work as an excuse to get rid of an employee;

• not alleging just cause if not terminating for cause; and

• making a reasonable severance offer in return for a general release of all claims.The above suggestions are not exhaustive and employers should seek legal advice before dismissing an employee if they think the employee is likely to file an unjust dismissal claim.

In Canada, when an employer terminates a federally regulated employee, in addition to providing proper notice, the termination must be "just". The concept of "unjust dismissal" under the Canada Labour Code (the "Code") is different from, and broader, than the common law concept of wrongful dismissal. Consequently, an employee can make a complaint under the Code even if he or she has received proper notice, or pay in lieu of such notice.

If an employee claims that he or she has been unjustly dismissed, the employer must be able to show that the termination was "just" i.e., that the decision to terminate was rational, made in good faith, made in a non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory manner, and procedurally fair.

Playing Professional Responsibility Hardball With Federal Agency Lawyers - Part Two

A very common professional responsibility violation that many federal government Agency lawyers commit routinely is the failure to pass along a settlement demand from the employee's attorney to the agency. Many of these Agency lawyers mistakenly believe that when the Agency settlement official informed the Agency lawyer that the federal agency had no financial authority to settle an employment case, they are freed of the professional responsibility to present each and every settlement demand, which is the standard professional responsibility requirement in many jurisdictions.

In fact, there may even be a federal agency protocol that these lawyers have to follow with respect to forwarding or specifically not forwarding certain offers from plaintiffs that are above a certain amount of money. Nonetheless, if that policy or protocol conflicts with that attorney's professional responsibility requirements, that attorney cannot shirk that duty. Lawyers are asked many times by their clients to ignore professional responsibility rules. A client's consent to same does not free that lawyer from those duties. I have heard from other lawyers that a typical defense attorney violates this rule at least half the time.

Equally fascinating is the federal agency attorney's reaction to a plaintiff's attorney reminding the government lawyer of his or her responsibility to follow these rules. It is almost immediately censured as a "threat" and along with it comes the accusation from the agency attorney that the plaintiff's lawyer has himself committed a professional responsibility violation through this reminder.

This reaction is strictly emotional and has absolutely no basis in reality. It is a product of the very environment of the agency bubble in which the attorney lives. Any force outside of that bubble is a foreign intrusion to which they have little if any familiarity.

The actual rule is pretty similar in most jurisdictions. In Washington, DC, this rule is 8.4 (g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Most importantly, it's under the general category of Rule 8 - Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession.

Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4 --Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

(d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice;

(e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;

(f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or

(g) Seek or threaten to seek criminal charges or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.

In their gut reaction, these agency lawyers assume that 8.4(g) has been violated. However, a Plaintiff's lawyer will have committed an 8.4(g) violation only if that lawyer actually linked that professional responsibility reminder to a litigation demand. For example, if the Plaintiff's lawyer told the agency lawyer that unless the agency paid his client x amount of money or didn't file a summary judgment motion, he was going to report professional responsibility violations.

The motivations behind plaintiff lawyers who send these reminders are two-fold. One is to make sure that any client isn't disadvantaged by an attorney failing to follow these rules. After all, this particular rule falls under the category of maintaining the profession's integrity. Two, is to ascertain whether a particular attorney is willing to submit his or her conduct to the Lawyer Rules of Professional Responsibility. If that person isn't, then in many jurisdictions, the Plaintiff's attorney then may have an obligation to report that lawyer to his or her state's bar.D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.3--Reporting Professional Misconduct


(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

Hence, because these attorneys don't deal with individual clients and are, let's face it, part of the agency, they may lack the professional independence in handling the litigation. A number of these lawyers may honestly believe that following Agency protocol protects them from Professional Responsibility issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. A simple, justified reminder is not a threat.

5 Steps Employment Lawyers Advise You To Take If Your Rights Have Been Violated

You feel your rights have been violated at work, you've done a thorough job researching your issue, and you think you have a good case to pursue against your employer. Now what? It can be hard to find a qualified and experienced attorney as there are few employment lawyers that work on behalf of employees compared to how many work for employers. Follow these five steps to make sure that your claim has the greatest chance of success.

1. Have A Conversation With Your Employer

First, you should file your statement of complaint with the human resources department at your company. Filing with HR first can sometimes provide a temporary or even permanent solution to the issue. You may also want to speak with your boss to see if the issue can be resolved before moving forward with a formal complaint. Make sure to stay professional and polite and avoid personal attacks. Keep a written record of all conversations and try not to gossip with your co-workers about the situation. If a conversation occurs, follow up via email with a summary of that conversation.

2. Determine If Your Employer Is Bound By Federal Law

The Family Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a few other federal laws govern employers that engage in interstate commerce. If you're not sure about your company, call the Wages and Hours Division of the Department of Labor, and they will tell you. They will also tell you if you need to file a state claim before proceeding with a federal claim as sometimes all state remedies must be exhausted before you can file at the federal level. Experienced employment lawyers can be particularly useful at this stage.

3. Gather Together All Required Information

When preparing to file your complaint, make sure you have gathered all of the required information. You will need your contact information as well as your employer's, and documentation that shows your position and pay. The court will look more favorably on written documents and evidence such as wage stubs, work transcripts, hiring and/or firing forms, and any relevant receipts. If you have any witness statements, employment lawyers will advise you to get these in writing.

4. File The Formal Complaint

When it's time to file with the appropriate government agency, you will generally start with the agency that governs your type of claim depending on if you are alleging discrimination, unfair hiring practices, workplace safety issues, etc. You will then be directed to your local office. An investigation will be conducted, and a determination made if your employer is liable. Based on that determination, a remedy may be issued such as an award for damages or an order for a change in the employer's work policies.

5. Follow The Progress Of The Complaint

If no violation is found, or you and your employer were not able to reach a settlement, then it is up to you to decide if you want to pursue private action. Interviewing employment lawyers at this point and having them review your case is likely your best solution.

Playing Professional Responsibility Hardball With Federal Agency Lawyers

Government Agency lawyers live in a bubble. They're protected by the same system of corruption, nepotism, waste, fraud and abuse that causes so much hardship to many Federal employees. As long as these lawyers tow the party line, their jobs are safe; they get nice pensions; and they don't have to worry about much.

While not all Government lawyers act in this way, the temptation to do so is enormous. Following the Agency director, Special Agent in Charge or some other high ranking bureaucrat is generally a big key to most any Federal Agency position, so a lawyer's should be no different.

However, there's one authority greater than that bureaucrat. It sends shock waves through all Federal Agency lawyers and in the vast majority of cases, these people are shocked by a new system of authority, something completely foreign: The Bar. Even Bill Clinton lost his Arkansas law license because the Arkansas bar people didn't care that he only committed perjury about sex.

The vast majority of bar complaints come from disgruntled clients who didn't get a good result on the case, so they blame their lawyer. The average lawyer in private practice will get a few of these in his or her career. For this reason, private practice attorneys after a number of years in practice have well developed defensive systems to cover themselves against these complaints.

Agency lawyers don't deal with this system and don't have the first clue about it. As such, they aren't generally up on Professional Responsibility rules. The fear of suspension or disbarment can be so great, that the Agency lawyer simply may not have the stomach for a bar complaint threat. There's very little reward for the Agency lawyer to go through one of these bar messes if it can be avoided.

Consider these examples that Agency lawyers don't have the first clue about, yet fully support their bureaucrat bosses:

1. A federal employee has an existing whistle blower claim. To tighten the screws, the Agency says at mediation that if the employee refuses to take its low ball offer, the Agency will terminate the employee for reasons it already knows to be untrue. It's unethical for lawyers to defend claims that have no merit. Since the federal employee will be filing another Merit Systems Protection Board claim against his/her agency, the agency lawyer will be litigating a claim: a frivolous, legal and factual claim because his/her bureaucrat boss ordered him to do so. His/her state's bar - doesn't care about the bubble - that's a violation.

2. A federal employee has an existing legal action for discrimination and he/she is represented by an attorney. The Agency lawyer executes an order from bureaucrat boss to send the Proposal to Remove letter directly to the employee, notwithstanding the employee is represented by counsel. In most state bars, that's a violation because the lawyer communicated directly with someone who that lawyer knew was represented. The agency lawyer had a professional responsibility requirement to communicate with that person's lawyer and didn't. His/her state's bar - doesn't care about the bubble - that's a violation.

3. Someone at the U.S. State Department orders a U.S. Attorney not to disclose emails from Hillary Clinton as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit because they will her make her look bad. U.S. Attorney agrees. Federal Judge later finds out the U.S. Attorney was more loyal to the Clintons than to the Rules of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer must follow. That lawyer should get ready to become a lobbyist.

Popular Social Security Loopholes Closed in Recent Budget Act

Social Security claims strategies that gained popularity among married couples are being eliminated under the recent Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Recognized by Congress as "unintended loopholes," the claims tactics resulted in increased benefits for couples in retirement.

One way to increase Social Security benefits by married couples who are both still working at age 66 or older is a technique known as double claiming. Under this strategy, one of the working partners files to collect SS benefits worth half of the higher earner's benefit amount. This allows the lower earning spouse to defer their own benefit, which then increases in value for every year deferred. When the lower earner does collect on their benefit, they enjoy a higher benefit payment.

The ability to use the double claim approach is changing after December 31, 2015. Social Security recipients who turn 62 in 2016 or later will be considered to be filing for their own benefit in regard to the determination of deferment.

Another technique known as "file and suspend" is being eliminated as of May 2016. Under this claims strategy, a SS recipient could file for payment of benefits and then immediately suspend the benefits. As the previous rules were written, however, a spouse and even some dependent children could collect benefits despite the suspension status of the SS member's account.

Beginning in May 2016, the ability for a spouse or dependent to receive benefits on a suspended account will no longer be available. A Social Security member will still be able to suspend their benefits, and in doing so will accrue a higher payment when they ultimately resume collecting benefits.

The file-and-suspend was initially intended to help participants who started to collect benefits, and then decided to return to work. While working, the ability to suspend benefits allowed the recipient to take advantage of receiving a higher benefit level at a future date. It became clear, however, that the spousal and dependent benefit was resulting in significantly higher than expected costs to the Social Security Fund.

There are several benefits that will remain available to Social Security participants, including:   

For married couples with a significant earnings disparity, the lower earner can file to receive up to 50 percent of the higher earner's benefit level.   

Surviving spouses will continue to inherit their deceased partner's Social Security benefit level, if it is higher than their own.   

All Social Security recipients can increase their monthly benefit level by deferring payment, up to age 70.

Full retirement age under Social Security, defined as the age at which a person may first become entitled to full or unreduced retirement benefits, is currently 66. Beginning in 2000, the Social Security Administration began a 22-year transition period during which the full retirement age is increasing from the former level of 65 to age 67.

A person who defers their benefit past full retirement age will receive an 8% increase annually, for every year of deferment up to age 70. Age 62 is the earliest point at which a person can begin to collect SS. Early filers receive 75% of the amount they would earn at full retirement age, in order to spread the earned benefit over a longer period of time.

When an employee is injured on the job, workers' compensation insurance is supposed to provide medical benefits and wage replacement. But times have changed. According to new data, a growing number of initial insurance claims are now denied. One of the reasons this is happening is that states have slashed benefits in recent years, making it harder for injured and ill workers to receive the money they rightly deserve. The only way many of them can successfully recover funds is to contact an experienced workers' comp lawyer. Here are the five most common reasons they call.

1. Surgery Is Required

Many initial claims are denied because the petitioner requested coverage for a surgical procedure. With less oversight and fewer restrictions on the state level, insurance companies subject most of these claims to close scrutiny, looking for a reason to deny them. In many instances, a petition must be letter-perfect to be approved.

2. Permanent Injury

Those who sustain a serious injury on the job may be entitled to permanent disability benefits. Because these cases can be quite costly, insurance companies set high hurdles that workers and their families must overcome. As such, a reputable workers' comp lawyer is often needed to successfully petition for lifelong benefits.

3. Pre-existing Disabilities

When an employee with pre-existing disabilities is hurt on the job, he/she often has a much harder time recovering funds than an able-bodied individual. The reason? Insurance companies may argue that the accident was caused by the employee's handicap rather than by some accident. They may even argue that the accident merely exacerbated the pre-existing disability, but did not cause it. Because these cases almost always involve medical opinions, they can be difficult to prove. It is not surprising that many providers simply reject them, putting the burden of proof on the petitioner.

4. Incorrect Benefits

As difficult as it can be to receive compensation in the first place, it can be even more challenging to have adjustments made after the fact. For recipients who believe they are entitled to additional benefits, successfully redressing the balance of payments can be a Herculean task. A good workers' comp lawyer may be able to set things right by negotiating directly with the insurance provider.

5. Appeals Are Effective

Although the laws differ from state to state, attorneys have had great success appealing denied claims throughout the land. According to the New Hampshire Department of Labor, for example, almost half of all claims that were initially denied were won on appeal. Similar numbers can be found in most U.S. states. Unfortunately, many employees do not dispute an adverse decision because they don't know how to proceed. An experienced attorney can be a godsend in this all-too-common legal quandary. Because he/she knows the system and the players, a savvy litigator can help any client determine their best course of legal action.

Large Pension Funds Increase Bond Investments

Defined-benefit pension plan sponsors struggled to fund their pension obligations in the wake of stock market declines after the Great Recession of 2008. Recently, a trend toward bond investments is emerging as major U.S. employers seek to reduce volatility and the associated vulnerability to market swings.

According to a recent article, the top 100 U.S. public companies now allocate defined benefit fund assets fairly equally between bonds (39.6 percent) and stocks (40.9 percent) as of 2013. Large pension funds overall hold more bonds than stocks for the first time in more than a decade, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The robust stock market of 2013 helped pension funds close funding gaps created five years earlier. Managers gained confidence in 2013 that their pension funds were in a better financial position to meet future obligations. As a result, they reduced their stock market risk and protected earnings by purchasing U.S. government and corporate bonds. The move was successful, according to a leading global provider of objectiveinvestment advice and services, which reports that the average corporate pension fund moved from a 75 percent funding level at the end of 2012 to 95 percent funding in late 2013.

Many Fortune 500 firms have made a major move into bonds, according to the Reuters report.

Defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s, where the employee retains responsibility for most investment decisions and funding levels, have largely replaced defined-benefit plans in the workplace. Consequently, fund managers are more focused on generating steady income to match the timing of defined benefit obligations and less concerned with the quest for high stock yields. Bonds are more attractive for this reason, since pension funds can preserve assets even if the stock market declines. Bonds are not without risk, however, since bond prices generally fall when interest rates rise.

Pension funds are said to be de-risking by shifting assets to bonds. Liability-driven investing ("LDI") is one form of investing in which the main goal is to gain sufficient assets to meet all pension liabilities, both current and future. As described above, one LDI strategy is to reduce equities and buy bonds, even when the market would seem to dictate otherwise. This asset-and-liability matching reduces a fund's exposure to market volatility.

Fortune 500 CFOs are increasingly aware of the damage underfunded pension plans can do to earnings, particularly given recent accounting changes that require greater financial reporting disclosure. Asset-and-liability matching can reduce the impact on a company's earnings, even if the pension fund's stock holdings drop in value.

This uptick in bond buying has caused corporate pension funds to play a more influential role in the bond market, since pension managers tend to hold bonds for the long term. As more and more companies adopt the strategy of buying more bonds, pension demand could total $150 billion a year. It is estimated that corporate pension funds buy more than 50 percent of new long-term bonds, up from an estimated 25 percent a few years ago.

On a related note, new actuarial projections reflect that retirees are living an average of two years longer. This fact also increases the pension fund's obligations, and companies need to report the higher liability on their balance sheet. By investing more in bonds, companies hope to weather such volatility without too much damage to either their pension funds or their bottom line.

Pension Annuitization Continues in De-Risking Trend

A consumer products company announced that effective June 1, retirement pension benefits owed to approximately 21,000 of its retirees will now come from two U.S. insurers. The company's benefit obligation was about $7 billion, while plan assets stood around $6 billion in 2014

Although the first insurance company will be the sole annuity administrator for the benefit payments, each retiree's benefit will be split evenly between the two as a security reinforcement measure. An independent fiduciary represented the retirees' interests and determined a split transaction was the safest available annuity structure.

The annuity purchase will be funded with assets of the product company's U.S. pension plan. To support the transfer, the company expects to make a $400- to $475-million contribution funded by debt financing, incremental to the company's previous assumption for 2015 global defined benefit pension plan contributions of up to $100 million.

A Texas-based personal care corporation expects a non-cash pension settlement charge of $800 million in the second quarter of this year, but that will be excluded from the company's 2015 adjusted results. The company expects that this transaction will likely save the firm around $2.5 billion without changing the monthly benefit of retirees, or damaging the company's financial outlook.

AON HEWITT SURVEY: PLAN SPONSORS REVIEW SETTLEMENT STRATEGIES

The leading consumer products company follows in the footsteps of other companies that have modified their pension plan obligations in light of rising insurance premiums and longer retiree life spans. A recent Aon Hewitt survey of 183 defined benefit plan sponsors indicated that as many as two-thirds of respondents intend to take further action in 2015 to rein in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premium costs in the future, and most, are likely to elect settlement strategies to do so.

Based on the answers of defined benefit pension plan sponsors in the survey, it was revealed:

• Almost one-quarter (22 percent) of employers are very likely to offer terminated vested participants a lump sum window in 2015

• 19 percent plan to increase cash contributions to reduce PBGC premiums in the year ahead

• 21 percent are considering purchasing annuities for a portion of their plan participantsIn addition, Aon Hewitt's survey also found that plan sponsors are increasingly adjusting plan assets to better balance liabilities:

• More than one-third (36 percent) have recently made this shift

• 31 percent of the remaining group are very likely to do so in the year aheadOther results from the survey are telling in terms of where companies currently stand with their pension plans:

• 74 percent have a defined benefit plan

• 35 percent have an open, on-going pension plan

• 34 percent have a plan that is closed to new hires

• 31 percent have a frozen plan

• 45 percent recently conducted an asset liability study

• 25 percent are somewhat or very likely to do a liability study in 2015 (of those that have not yet done so)

• 18 percent performed a mortality study in 2014; 10 percent plan to do so in 2015

• 26 percent currently monitor the funded status of their plan on a daily basis, up from just 12 percent in 2013

MANAGING PENSION PLAN VOLATILITY

Employers who plan ahead to better manage potential volatility of their pension plans-either through the purchase and transfer of annuities or through lump sum payment offerings-will be better positioned in the future. However, de-risking must not only balance the company's bottom line but also protect retiree assets.

In 2013, the Department of Labor's ERISA Advisory Council issued a report confirming recent increases in defined benefit plan de-risking activity. The Council addressed the need to view these transactions as more of a 'transfer of risk' because when the pension plan sponsor removes its risk, the transaction results in a corresponding increased risk for the other party-either the insurer in the event of an annuity purchase or in the individual participant in a lump sum payment offering.

The Council recommended that the Department of Labor:

1.) Clarify the scope of IB 95-1 to include that de-risking activity applies to any purchase of an annuity from an insurer as a distribution of benefits under a defined benefit plan, not just purchases coincident with a plan termination. Also to consider the development of safe harbors within the scope of the Interpretive Bulletin for such purchases.

2.) Require that a defined benefit pension plan provide participants with an option of a lump sum distribution within a specified window, with or without a separate option of the distribution of an annuity described in IB 95-1.3.) Consider providing guidance under ERISA Section 502(a)(9) to provide clarity to plan fiduciaries regarding the consequences of a breach of fiduciary duty in the selection of an annuity contract for distribution out of the plan, including guidance for the term "appropriate relief" (e.g., whether monetary relief is available) and under what circumstances "posting of security" generally may be necessary.

4.) Provide education and outreach to plan sponsors.

5.) Consider the potential benefits of collecting relevant information regarding plan de-risking in the form of lump sum windows and annuity purchases outside the context of a plan termination.

IN SUMMARYAs ERISA-Benefits Consulting has reported in the past, pension transfer deals are likely to continue as plan sponsors look for ways to move employee-benefit costs and associated liabilities off their books.

Yet, the pension annuitization trend is a concern for some retirees because their benefits no longer carry pension guarantees from PBGC. If Prudential, Mass Mutual or another insurance company comes across financial challenges, shortfalls in payouts would be handled through state-mandated guaranty funds that are financed by the insurance industry.

3 Types Of Christmas Compensation Claim

Christmas is just around the corner, which means many families up and down the country will be preparing for festive feasts, hitting the shops to buy gifts and looking forward to spending more time with loved ones.

Unfortunately, the holidays aren't a joyous occasion for everyone. In fact, figures from the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District revealed that regional hospitals experience a 40 per cent rise in the number of injuries that require hospitalisation during the Xmas period. Dr Peter Grant, senior staff specialist at St George's Hospital's emergency department, said there are various reasons why more accidents occur at Christmas."For every road death, there are at least ten times as many people left with significant injuries."Speaking in December 2014, Dr Grant stated: "This year, we treated children who have suffered injuries due to accidents involving skateboards, bikes and Christmas toys; and elderly patients suffering falls or other mishaps in the unfamiliar environment of relative's homes."People who injure themselves during the festive season may be entitled to compensation, depending on the circumstances of their accident. But what types of payout are available? Here are a few of the leading reasons individuals may get in touch with injury compensation lawyers at Christmas.

1. Car accidents

Motor vehicle collisions are more frequent during the holidays, with alcohol consumption and regular travel considered the main contributing factors. Drunk drivers are unlikely to receive car accident compensation, but other road users may be eligible if they are involved in an incident.

Data from the Emergency Medicine Foundation (EMF) showed Australians collectively sustained 2,500 serious injuries on the country's roads over the Christmas and New Year period in 2014-15."For every road death, there are at least ten times as many people left with significant injuries and 50 times more with minor injuries that still interfere with everyday life," said Dr Aitken, chair and emergency specialist at the EMF.

Car accidents occur more frequently during the festive season.

2. Workplace accidents

Christmas is a time of giving, and forecasts suggest people intend to be particularly generous this year. The Australian Retailers Association and Roy Morgan Research predicted festive spending will reach $46.7 billion in retail stores between November 15 and December 24 - 3.6 per cent higher than in 2014.

However, accidents can happen when businesses are rushing to cope with Christmas demand. Last month's Black Friday sales have already shown how dangerous shops can be when consumers congregate en-masse to battle over the best deals. Staff members that are injured while doing their job may be entitled to workers' compensation, which can cover lost wages, medical expenses and a range of other costs.

3. Slips and falls

The number of people who shopped at bricks-and-mortar stores rose 4.1 per cent year on year in September, according to National Australia Bank data. While this growth was less than the 5.7 per cent annual leap in online retail, the figures indicate Australians still love to buy gifts the old-fashioned way.

Experienced injury compensation lawyers can provide expert advice on the likelihood of a claim's success.

With bustling Christmas crowds filling shops to bursting point, the chance of suffering a slip, trip or fall could increase. Whether it's an unattended drink spillage, boxes in store aisles or various other hazards, busy shops can lead to injuries in numerous ways.

Claimants who prove they were owed a duty of care while in a public place may receive compensation if they can also show this obligation was breached.

Making a claim

These are just three examples of when individuals may be entitled to a payout due to an injury sustained during Christmas celebrations. However, there are many other situations where compensation is appropriate.

Single Employer Pension Fees to Increase Following 2015 Budget Act

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 ("BBA") was signed into law on November 1, 2015. While the primary intent of the law was to increase federal spending limits and raise the debt ceiling, the BBA also included two important pension provisions:   

MAP-21 rates were extended, which allows defined-benefit pension plans maintained by single employers to calculate pension liabilities in a way that lowers minimum funding requirements; and   

Pension premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") by single employer plan sponsors will increase for plan years 2017 through 2019.

Both the fixed premiums and the variable rate premiums paid to the PBGC by single employer pension plans are scheduled to increase as follows:   

For 2017, fixed premiums will increase to $69 per participant, up from $64 in 2016 and $57 in 2015. Variable rate premiums will increase by $3.00.   

For 2018, fixed premiums will increase to $74, while variable rate premiums will increase by $4.00.   

For 2019, fixed premiums will increase to $80, with another $4.00 increase for variable rate premiums.The single-employer variable-rate premium is $30 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits for 2016.

The PBGC increases caused considerable comment among industry watchers, since the PBGC had not requested the rate changes. However, the PBGC rate increases qualify as a revenue source in the federal budget. The $4 billion in additional pension fees from 2016 through 2025 resulting from the action helped to offset the budgeted cost of federal spending increases.

Funding rates for multi-employer pension funds remain unchanged under the BBA, even though multi-employer plans face more serious funding shortages. The PBGC estimates that the FY 2014 deficit of $42.4 billion for multi-employer plans will decline to approximately $28 billion (measured in present value) for FY 2024.

As we have written about in the past, a number of defined benefit pension plan sponsors-including Verizon, General Motors, and Ford Motor Company-have transferred payment obligations to third parties in a move known as "pension terminal funding."When this happens, a plan sponsor transfers a defined amount of outstanding pension obligations to an insurance company in exchange for an advance premium and administrative costs. The insurer then assumes liability for the payments, and the transferred pension obligations are removed from the balance sheet of the original plan sponsor. The participants whose benefits are transferred are no longer subject to the fixed premium calculation and the assets transferred no longer impact the variable premium.

The PBGC's rate increase for single-employer plans may accelerate the trend for plan sponsors to terminate defined benefit pension plans.

In another recent announcement, the agency alerted participants in PBGC-covered pension plans that the 2016 annual maximum guaranteed benefit for a 65-year-old retiree in a single-employer plan will remain unchanged at $60,136. Guaranteed benefit levels for multiemployer plan participants will also remain the same as they were in 2015. A zero increase in Social Security's annual cost-of-living adjustment is behind the benefit calculations.