From SHRM (Society of Human Resources Managers)
In response to the outbreak of the H1N1 flu virus, U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., introduced emergency legislation (H.R. 3991) that would provide five paid sick days to workers with contagious diseases who are told by their employers to stay home.
Miller, who chairs the House Education and Labor Committee, told reporters that the legislation was needed to help stop the spread of the expanding H1N1 pandemic. To emphasize that point, Miller named the proposal the Emergency Influenza Containment Act.
“Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn’t have to choose between their livelihood, and their co-workers’ or customers’ health,” Miller said. “This will not only protect employees, but it will save employers money by ensuring that sick employees don’t spread infection to co-workers and customers, and will relieve the financial burden on our health system swamped by those suffering from H1N1.” Read more.
Bill Leonard is senior writer for SHRM.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Help Daniel Lumber Company Feed Savannah This Holiday Season
Daniel Lumber Company and Daniel Kitchen & Bath, in conjunction with America’s Second Harvest of Coastal Georgia are spearheading an effort to help feed the less fortunate in and around Savannah this holiday season with the Daniel Lumber Company and America’s Second Harvest Food Drive between now and December 31.
Drop off locations are conveniently located at the Daniel Lumber Company full-service lumber yard (2302 E. Gwinnett Street) in Savannah and the Daniel Kitchen and Bath Cabinet Showroom (3190 Highway 80 West) in Bloomingdale. Non-perishable meats and high protein items such as canned chicken, ham, mackerel, meat spreads, salmon, sardines, tuna, peanut butter, beef stew, canned stew and canned beans or peas are in greatest demand by Savannah’s hungry. Read more.
Drop off locations are conveniently located at the Daniel Lumber Company full-service lumber yard (2302 E. Gwinnett Street) in Savannah and the Daniel Kitchen and Bath Cabinet Showroom (3190 Highway 80 West) in Bloomingdale. Non-perishable meats and high protein items such as canned chicken, ham, mackerel, meat spreads, salmon, sardines, tuna, peanut butter, beef stew, canned stew and canned beans or peas are in greatest demand by Savannah’s hungry. Read more.
Friday, November 13, 2009
SCAM ALERT: Bad Checks and Bad Acts
Be on the watch for this kind of scam.....
A mid-Michigan member of the Michigan Lumber & Building Materials Association (MLBMA) regarding a $2800 check they'd received, along with a request to confirm the transaction. MLBMA researched the matter and determined it definitely is a scam.
The check was allegedly sent to the member from Bailey/Laurerman/Marketing/Communications in Lincoln, Nebraska. The check was drawn on a Tier One Bank account from Lincoln, Nebraska. It contained an official looking UPS Next Day Air tracking number. It was sent from the Kennedy Space Center making I look like the Space Center is a client of Bailey/Laurerman.
A message at the bottom of the correspondence informed the member:
"We would like you to email our secure payment department on payverifier2009@live.com. For your confirmation and more information before you continue the transaction, please don't ignore this email. Make sure you email us to the provided email and don't agree with any correspondent abuse about this email. This Payment Verification is to confirm you receive the payment successfully."
MLBMA determined this was a scam by determining the following:
1. There is a real P.R. firm in Lincoln, Nebraska by that name but it has one less letter in its name;
2. Tier One Bank is located in Lincoln but the address on the check is 20 digits off the real address;
3. The overall spelling and general approach is unprofessional and bogus. Canadian and Australian scammers have apparently been using this tactic with increasing frequency.
If you receive something like this do not respond to verify its receipt. The culprits have a way of using your response in the scam. Do not respond to the email. Delete it.
A mid-Michigan member of the Michigan Lumber & Building Materials Association (MLBMA) regarding a $2800 check they'd received, along with a request to confirm the transaction. MLBMA researched the matter and determined it definitely is a scam.
The check was allegedly sent to the member from Bailey/Laurerman/Marketing/Communications in Lincoln, Nebraska. The check was drawn on a Tier One Bank account from Lincoln, Nebraska. It contained an official looking UPS Next Day Air tracking number. It was sent from the Kennedy Space Center making I look like the Space Center is a client of Bailey/Laurerman.
A message at the bottom of the correspondence informed the member:
"We would like you to email our secure payment department on payverifier2009@live.com. For your confirmation and more information before you continue the transaction, please don't ignore this email. Make sure you email us to the provided email and don't agree with any correspondent abuse about this email. This Payment Verification is to confirm you receive the payment successfully."
MLBMA determined this was a scam by determining the following:
1. There is a real P.R. firm in Lincoln, Nebraska by that name but it has one less letter in its name;
2. Tier One Bank is located in Lincoln but the address on the check is 20 digits off the real address;
3. The overall spelling and general approach is unprofessional and bogus. Canadian and Australian scammers have apparently been using this tactic with increasing frequency.
If you receive something like this do not respond to verify its receipt. The culprits have a way of using your response in the scam. Do not respond to the email. Delete it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
NLBMDA ALERT: FTC Delays Enforcement of Red Flags Rule Until June 1, 2010
The Federal Trade Commission has announced another delay in its enforcement of the "Red Flags" Rule, which requires creditors to have Identity Theft Prevention Programs. The FTC is now delaying enforcement of the new rule until June 1, 2010, to give creditors additional time in which to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs. The last deadline was November 1, 2009.
On November 9, 2007, the FTC published the final Identity Theft Red Flags regulations and guidelines. The rule, promulgated pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), requires creditors to develop and implement written "identity theft prevention programs." The programs must provide for the identification, detection, and response to patterns, practices, or specific activities - known as "red flags" - that could indicate identity theft.
Additional information on the rule can be found on the NLBMDA website, www.dealer.org, in the "Government Affairs" section.
See the full text of the FTC release announcing the delay in enforcement at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/redflags.shtm. They have also now established a compliance site for businesses at http://www.ftc.gov/redflagsrule.
Read the original here.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Senate Passes Unemployment Extension, Home Buyer Tax Break
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution
The U.S. Senate late Wednesday unanimously passed legislation extending unemployment benefits and also significantly expanding a homebuyer tax credit that was championed by Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.
The Senate voted 98-0 to extend unemployment benefits for the jobless by up to 20 weeks. In states with unemployment rates of 8.5 percent and above -- in Georgia the unemployment rate is 10.1 percent -- the jobless could receive up to 99 weeks of benefits, which average about $300 per week. Read more.
The U.S. Senate late Wednesday unanimously passed legislation extending unemployment benefits and also significantly expanding a homebuyer tax credit that was championed by Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.
The Senate voted 98-0 to extend unemployment benefits for the jobless by up to 20 weeks. In states with unemployment rates of 8.5 percent and above -- in Georgia the unemployment rate is 10.1 percent -- the jobless could receive up to 99 weeks of benefits, which average about $300 per week. Read more.
NLBMDA ALERT: Tell Congress to Oppose Health Care Tax Hikes on Small Business
BACKGROUND: The House Democratic leadership has unveiled their final health care reform legislation, with a vote expected before Veterans' Day - and possibly as early as this weekend. Unfortunately, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" (H.R. 3962) contains numerous onerous provisions that will only drive up the costs for small businesses and penalize employers, rather than addressing health care costs in a meaningful way.
Some major areas of concern in H.R. 3962 for small businesses:
* Employer Mandate: Employers will be required to offer health care to full and part-time employees. All employers with a payroll of $500,000 or more will pay a payroll tax of up to 8 percent if they do not provide "qualified" health insurance to their employees.
* "Pay-or-Play": Employers who do offer benefits may still be subject to penalties if they do not offer "qualified" individual and family coverage, meet premium contribution requirements of at least 72.5% for individuals and 65% for family plans, and offer a "qualified" plan as defined by a government-appointed board. If an employee declines coverage from their employer and instead obtain coverage through the exchange, the employer will be subject to a payroll tax penalty of up to 8 percent. An employer who offers coverage other than the "qualified" plan can be assessed a penalty of $100 per employee per day, up to $500,000.
* Surtax on Small Businesses: The bill contains a surtax on individuals with incomes of $500,000 single/$1 million joint - which will also impact the 75 percent of small businesses who are structured as pass-through entities and pay their business taxes at the individual level.
* 1099 Reporting Requirements: H.R. 3962 includes increased corporate reporting requirements that will mandate that companies issue a Form 1099 to all corporations from whom they purchase goods or services, once a $600 per year per vendor threshold has been reached.
TAKE ACTION: Visit www.BuildtheVote.org to quickly send an email message to your Representative asking him/her to vote NO on H.R. 3962. You can also call your legislators through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
Some major areas of concern in H.R. 3962 for small businesses:
* Employer Mandate: Employers will be required to offer health care to full and part-time employees. All employers with a payroll of $500,000 or more will pay a payroll tax of up to 8 percent if they do not provide "qualified" health insurance to their employees.
* "Pay-or-Play": Employers who do offer benefits may still be subject to penalties if they do not offer "qualified" individual and family coverage, meet premium contribution requirements of at least 72.5% for individuals and 65% for family plans, and offer a "qualified" plan as defined by a government-appointed board. If an employee declines coverage from their employer and instead obtain coverage through the exchange, the employer will be subject to a payroll tax penalty of up to 8 percent. An employer who offers coverage other than the "qualified" plan can be assessed a penalty of $100 per employee per day, up to $500,000.
* Surtax on Small Businesses: The bill contains a surtax on individuals with incomes of $500,000 single/$1 million joint - which will also impact the 75 percent of small businesses who are structured as pass-through entities and pay their business taxes at the individual level.
* 1099 Reporting Requirements: H.R. 3962 includes increased corporate reporting requirements that will mandate that companies issue a Form 1099 to all corporations from whom they purchase goods or services, once a $600 per year per vendor threshold has been reached.
TAKE ACTION: Visit www.BuildtheVote.org to quickly send an email message to your Representative asking him/her to vote NO on H.R. 3962. You can also call your legislators through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
SCAM ALERT: PHONY TRUSS ORDERS
SCAM ALERT
Scammers are targeting the truss portion of the industry. More than 40 companies have been contacted by the scammers, and one company may have lost money because of it. We urge you to be extremely vigilant in screening potential customers!
Be on the watch for these warning signs:
• Emails from an individual asking for pricing on a large quantity of trusses (e.g., 200). He may attach a picture of a truss. Often, the requestor claims to be a Reverend representing the Presbyterian Church of God. However, in the most recent wave, the scammers have had normal names (e.g., Dave Weliam).
• The requestor says he is making arrangements with a freight company to pick up the order.
• At some point the requestor will ask if you accept credit cards and may even send you a credit card number. He will likely instruct you to pre-pay the freight company, and add the freight charges to his final invoice.
Please forward this email to anyone in your company that receives email and has contact with customers. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau and the FBI have many resources on how to avoid falling victim to email fraud. You can also file a fraud complaint on any of these websites.
Scammers are targeting the truss portion of the industry. More than 40 companies have been contacted by the scammers, and one company may have lost money because of it. We urge you to be extremely vigilant in screening potential customers!
Be on the watch for these warning signs:
• Emails from an individual asking for pricing on a large quantity of trusses (e.g., 200). He may attach a picture of a truss. Often, the requestor claims to be a Reverend representing the Presbyterian Church of God. However, in the most recent wave, the scammers have had normal names (e.g., Dave Weliam).
• The requestor says he is making arrangements with a freight company to pick up the order.
• At some point the requestor will ask if you accept credit cards and may even send you a credit card number. He will likely instruct you to pre-pay the freight company, and add the freight charges to his final invoice.
Please forward this email to anyone in your company that receives email and has contact with customers. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau and the FBI have many resources on how to avoid falling victim to email fraud. You can also file a fraud complaint on any of these websites.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Georgia Appellate Court Voids Restrictive Covenant in Employment Contract
10/5/2009
By Diane Cadrain
The Georgia Court of Appeals voided the noncompetition clause in an employment contract, finding that it was overbroad because it failed to properly limit the territory to which it applied.
Mary Squire worked as a tax professional at an H & R Block office in Gainesville, Georgia. Her job required her to prepare and file tax returns for individual Block clients. After four months of this work, Block hired her as the office manager for her office for the 2008 tax season. In her capacity as an office manager, Squire had access to Block's client database for the entire Gainesville District. Her employment contract for the office manager job contained certain post-employment restrictive covenants, including noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses, which barred her from setting up or working for a competing business within 10 miles from Block's Gainesville district and soliciting Block clients.
In early December 2008, Squire resigned from Block, but worked for approximately two more weeks after giving her notice of her resignation.
During that time she continued to have access to the Block client database for the Gainesville District.
In early January 2009, Squire's former district manager at Block saw Squire pictured, together with other former Block employees, in an advertisement for Paramount. The ad referred to Paramount's "tax professionals, pictured above." Shortly thereafter, Paramount sent out a business-solicitation letter to almost 6,000 people, offering them $30 off on tax preparation services, and stating that many recipients of the letter may have used Paramount's professionals when they previously worked at "another company around the block." The letter then gave the names of Paramount's "Tax Preparers," each of whom was a former Block employee, and specified the Paramount location where each individual was working.
Block sued Squire and Paramount for breach of the contract covenants. A trial court ruled that the covenants were enforceable and that Squire had breached them. Squire and Paramount appealed.
The appellate court first addressed whether the restrictive covenants in Squire's employment contract were enforceable. Such covenants, the court stated, will be enforced only if they are reasonable as to: (1) duration;
(2) the capacity in which the employee is prohibited from competing against his former employer; and (3) the geographic territory in which the former employee is restricted from working.
Applying these principles, the appellate court found that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable because the noncompetition clause was overbroad in that it failed to properly limit the territory to which it applied.
To be enforceable, the court said, a non-competition clause must contain a territorial limitation sufficient to give the employee notice of what constitutes a violation by specifying the territory in which the employee's conduct is restricted.
Squire's contract barred her from working for any employer whose business included the preparation and electronic filing of income-tax returns, if that employer was located, conducted business, or solicited business in Block's Gainesville District or within 10 miles of its borders. But, the court said, the contract failed to limit the prohibited conduct to a specific geographic area. In fact, on its face, according to the court, the contract language would have prevented Squire from accepting employment anywhere in the United States, if her prospective employer engages in the preparation and electronic filing of tax returns and also either has an office or advertises in, or within ten miles of, Block's Gainesville District.
Significantly, the court stated, the restriction would apply even if Squire were not going to work at a location within ten miles of the district. It would bar Squire from accepting employment, for example, at the Atlanta, Savannah, Macon, or Columbus office of a statewide tax preparation or accounting firm, if that firm also had an office in or advertised within ten miles of the Gainesville District. Similarly, assuming that one or more of Block's national competitors has offices or advertises within ten miles of the Gainesville District, this language would prevent Squire from accepting a position with such an entity, even if she were relocating out-of-state.
In light of those provisions, the court found that the contract overprotected Block's business interest in the customer relationships Squire may have developed while at Block, and it did so at the expense of her right to earn a living and her ability to determine with certainty the area within which [her] post-employment actions are restricted.
Given its overbreadth, the noncompetition covenant contained in Squire's employment contract was unenforceable as a matter of law, the court concluded. And because the noncompetition clause was unenforceable, the nonsolicitation clause included in the agreement was likewise unenforceable.
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's findings.
About the author.
Diane Cadrain is an attorney who has been writing about employment law issues for more than 20 years. She is a member of the Human Resource Association of Central Connecticut.
Editor's Note: This article should not be construed as legal advice.
Paramount Tax & Accounting, LLC v. H & R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., Ga. Ct. App., No. A09A1542 (Aug. 6, 2009).
By Diane Cadrain
The Georgia Court of Appeals voided the noncompetition clause in an employment contract, finding that it was overbroad because it failed to properly limit the territory to which it applied.
Mary Squire worked as a tax professional at an H & R Block office in Gainesville, Georgia. Her job required her to prepare and file tax returns for individual Block clients. After four months of this work, Block hired her as the office manager for her office for the 2008 tax season. In her capacity as an office manager, Squire had access to Block's client database for the entire Gainesville District. Her employment contract for the office manager job contained certain post-employment restrictive covenants, including noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses, which barred her from setting up or working for a competing business within 10 miles from Block's Gainesville district and soliciting Block clients.
In early December 2008, Squire resigned from Block, but worked for approximately two more weeks after giving her notice of her resignation.
During that time she continued to have access to the Block client database for the Gainesville District.
In early January 2009, Squire's former district manager at Block saw Squire pictured, together with other former Block employees, in an advertisement for Paramount. The ad referred to Paramount's "tax professionals, pictured above." Shortly thereafter, Paramount sent out a business-solicitation letter to almost 6,000 people, offering them $30 off on tax preparation services, and stating that many recipients of the letter may have used Paramount's professionals when they previously worked at "another company around the block." The letter then gave the names of Paramount's "Tax Preparers," each of whom was a former Block employee, and specified the Paramount location where each individual was working.
Block sued Squire and Paramount for breach of the contract covenants. A trial court ruled that the covenants were enforceable and that Squire had breached them. Squire and Paramount appealed.
The appellate court first addressed whether the restrictive covenants in Squire's employment contract were enforceable. Such covenants, the court stated, will be enforced only if they are reasonable as to: (1) duration;
(2) the capacity in which the employee is prohibited from competing against his former employer; and (3) the geographic territory in which the former employee is restricted from working.
Applying these principles, the appellate court found that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable because the noncompetition clause was overbroad in that it failed to properly limit the territory to which it applied.
To be enforceable, the court said, a non-competition clause must contain a territorial limitation sufficient to give the employee notice of what constitutes a violation by specifying the territory in which the employee's conduct is restricted.
Squire's contract barred her from working for any employer whose business included the preparation and electronic filing of income-tax returns, if that employer was located, conducted business, or solicited business in Block's Gainesville District or within 10 miles of its borders. But, the court said, the contract failed to limit the prohibited conduct to a specific geographic area. In fact, on its face, according to the court, the contract language would have prevented Squire from accepting employment anywhere in the United States, if her prospective employer engages in the preparation and electronic filing of tax returns and also either has an office or advertises in, or within ten miles of, Block's Gainesville District.
Significantly, the court stated, the restriction would apply even if Squire were not going to work at a location within ten miles of the district. It would bar Squire from accepting employment, for example, at the Atlanta, Savannah, Macon, or Columbus office of a statewide tax preparation or accounting firm, if that firm also had an office in or advertised within ten miles of the Gainesville District. Similarly, assuming that one or more of Block's national competitors has offices or advertises within ten miles of the Gainesville District, this language would prevent Squire from accepting a position with such an entity, even if she were relocating out-of-state.
In light of those provisions, the court found that the contract overprotected Block's business interest in the customer relationships Squire may have developed while at Block, and it did so at the expense of her right to earn a living and her ability to determine with certainty the area within which [her] post-employment actions are restricted.
Given its overbreadth, the noncompetition covenant contained in Squire's employment contract was unenforceable as a matter of law, the court concluded. And because the noncompetition clause was unenforceable, the nonsolicitation clause included in the agreement was likewise unenforceable.
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's findings.
About the author.
Diane Cadrain is an attorney who has been writing about employment law issues for more than 20 years. She is a member of the Human Resource Association of Central Connecticut.
Editor's Note: This article should not be construed as legal advice.
Paramount Tax & Accounting, LLC v. H & R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., Ga. Ct. App., No. A09A1542 (Aug. 6, 2009).
Special Training Program: The Forklift and You - Decrease your forklift accidents and increase your bottom line
Get the only forklift training specific to the lumber and building material industry that meets all OSHA forklift training requirements. The training program includes:
-Industry-specific video/DVD
-Trainer’s guide
-Complete operator package
-Training poster
-Industry-specific video/DVD
-Trainer’s guide
-Complete operator package
-Training poster
Click the picture for details and order information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
