16 Nov

TrussU Webinar: Social Media in the Workplace

Social media can be a powerful tool to grow your business, but it can create workplace distractions. Join us on December 5 as we discuss when and how to regulate the use of social media including tips for implementing a social media policy!

https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/6761837462220971778

 

10 Nov

Thank you Veterans!

07 Nov

November TrussConnect

Jason Patchen

Commercial Auto Industry Sees Significant Premium Increases
by Jason Patchen
Chief Marketing Officer

Throughout 2017, premiums within the commercial auto space have seen increases – some of which are significant.

According to various industry rating agencies, in 2016 the United States commercial auto industry reported its worst underwriting performance since 2001 with a 110.4 percent combined ratio. The segment produced an underwriting loss for six consecutive years, unfavorable claim trends indicate continued high loss ratios, and adverse reserve development will continue throughout 2017 and beyond. Several factors are driving these claim trends including:

  • More traffic. Nationwide, vehicle miles driven increased 3.3 percent year-over-year in the first half of 2016 and is now at an all-time high. More vehicles = higher frequency of accidents.
  • Distracted drivers. More than 25 percent of crashes have been attributed to distracted driving.
  • Escalating medical costs. Medical costs are climbing more than 1.5 times faster than other costs.
  • Risk repair costs. Record U.S. auto sales mean newer cars require more expensive parts.
  • Increased accident frequency plus severity. Rising claims costs typically stem from either increased frequency or severity – but in the case of commercial auto, it’s both.
  • Inexperienced or undesirable drivers. A shortage of skilled commercial drivers with good driving records = greater odds for accidents

While other commercial insurance industry segments have seen more competitive pricing, continued rate increases are expected going forward as a result of these trends. Our insurance carrier partners are teaming with us in an attempt to mitigate losses for our clients through risk control measures – these include implementing a fleet safety program and a distracted driving policy.

One of our carrier partners, United Fire Group, has launched the “Worth It” campaign. This distracted driving educational and incentive program aims to bring people together and asks participants to pledge an end to distracted driving. However, hands-free devices also are contributing to this issue. Full campaign details including research findings and a distracted driving presentation are located on the following website: www.ufgworthit.com.

Are you interested in learning more about the commercial auto marketplace, need assistance with your risk control measures, or want more information on the Worth It distracted driving presentation? Please contact your Truss representative today!

Recapping Recent Health Care Updates
by Mark Avery
Chief Strategy Officer

Last week President Trump took two distinct actions in his effort to shape health care. The first was to sign an Executive Order intended to increase access to association health plans, lengthen the availability of short-term medical policies, and allow insurance to be sold across state lines. The second was a pronouncement the government would immediately end Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments to insurers.

The first action, long a Republican ideal, was expected; the second was a bit more surprising if for no other reason than its timing.

READ MORE

Congratulations Marko!

Marko Ugnaschick, CEO of Two West Companies, was recently named by the Financial Times magazine as one the 2017 Top U.S. Retirement Advisors. He was one of five Kansas City area retirement plan advisor to earn this national recognition.

READ MORE

19 Oct

Commercial Auto Industry Sees Significant Premium Increases

Jason Patchen By Jason Patchen
Chief Marketing Officer

Throughout 2017, premiums within the commercial auto space have seen increases – some of which are significant.

According to various industry rating agencies, in 2016 the United States commercial auto industry reported its worst underwriting performance since 2001 with a 110.4 percent combined ratio. The segment produced an underwriting loss for six consecutive years, unfavorable claim trends indicate continued high loss ratios, and adverse reserve development will continue throughout 2017 and beyond. Several factors are driving these claim trends including:

  • More traffic. Nationwide, vehicle miles driven increased 3.3 percent year-over-year in the first half of 2016 and is now at an all-time high. More vehicles = higher frequency of accidents.
  • Distracted drivers. More than 25 percent of crashes have been attributed to distracted driving.
  • Escalating medical costs. Medical costs are climbing more than 1.5 times faster than other costs.
  • Risk repair costs. Record U.S. auto sales mean newer cars require more expensive parts.
  • Increased accident frequency plus severity. Rising claims costs typically stem from either increased frequency or severity – but in the case of commercial auto, it’s both.
  • Inexperienced or undesirable drivers. A shortage of skilled commercial drivers with good driving records = greater odds for accidents.

While other commercial insurance industry segments have seen more competitive pricing, continued rate increases are expected going forward as a result of these trends.  Our insurance carrier partners are teaming with us in an attempt to mitigate losses for our clients through risk control measures – these include implementing a fleet safety program and a distracted driving policy.

One of our carrier partners, United Fire Group, has launched the “Worth It” campaign. This distracted driving educational and incentive program aims to bring people together and asks participants to pledge an end to distracted driving. However, hands-free devices also are contributing to this issue. Full campaign details including research findings and a distracted driving presentation are located on the following website: www.ufgworthit.com.

Are you interested in learning more about the commercial auto marketplace, need assistance with your risk control measures, or want more information on the Worth It distracted driving presentation? Please contact your Truss representative today!

 

16 Oct

Recapping the Week in Healthcare

Upheaval; an Executive Order and no more Cost-Sharing Reduction payments to insurers

By Mark Avery, Chief Strategy Officer

Last week President Trump took two distinct actions in his effort to shape health care. The first was to sign an Executive Order intended to increase access to association health plans, lengthen the availability of short-term medical policies, and allow insurance to be sold across state lines. The second was a pronouncement the government would immediately end Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments to insurers.

The first action, long a Republican ideal, was expected; the second was a bit more surprising if for no other reason than its timing.

What does the Executive Order mean?

Association health plans have existed for many years; however, they’ve been limited to operation within a single state and were subject to ACA regulations. Until now, these restrictions have limited employers’ ability to band together with other employers in creating health plans, which might otherwise enable them to leverage greater scale in spreading risk and negotiating pricing. Also, insurers have been required to comply with the state-mandated benefit requirements in each state they are participating. So, if one state has fewer coverage requirements which result in lower premiums, one can’t buy a policy in that state without residing there.

The EO seeks to allow associations to widen the use of health plans by directing several federal departments to rewrite the rules governing them. This could mean two things. It will be easier to create multi-employer plans, but also that plans can be created without some of the coverage elements required under the ACA. This will most likely result in a return to “skinny” or limited-benefit plans to create lower cost options for both the employer and individual markets.

Why is it controversial?

Broadly speaking Democrats have not been proponents of association health plans due to concerns regarding consumer protection. Without effective oversight that ensures consistency and solvency, participants could be left ‘holding the bag.’ To this point, in 1992, the Government Accountability Office published a report saying these multi-employer arrangements left almost 400,000 insureds with more than $123 million in unpaid claims over the preceding 3½ years.

Republicans, however, have long believed broadening benefit design options and enabling employers to leverage buying power created by associations will lead to greater consumer choice and lower premiums.

What does the elimination of the Cost-Sharing Reduction subsidy mean?

There are two types of subsidies paid to insurers on behalf of participants who meet the income requirements. The first, and most commonly known, are premium subsidies which assist individuals between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level. The second, known as CSR subsidies, help offset the cost of deductibles and out-of-pocket limits for individuals up to 250 percent of the poverty line.

Why is it controversial?

The total estimated cost of these payments for 2017 was estimated at $7 billion. Eliminating the CSR subsidy payment for the last three months of the year means insurers will be shorted approximately $1.75 billion in reimbursements for obligations to participants. While implications exist both for insurance carriers now and premiums in the future, it should be noted that participants are not directly harmed by this.

Further clouding this issue is the ongoing question of whether or not these payments are even legal for the administration to continue making. In 2014 House Republicans filed a lawsuit alleging the then-Obama administration didn’t have the authority to make the payments because Congress needs to appropriate funding. Last year a federal judge concurred with Republicans that such payments needed to be authorized by Congress.

Creating further consternation among Democrats and many in the insurance industry is the timing of this announcement – occurring only weeks before the November 1, 2018, marketplace open enrollment period is set to begin.

Industry groups have estimated the impact of eliminating this payment to mean an approximate 20 percent increase in premiums next year. It is expected, however, given the current uncertainty, that insurers had factored this possibility into their rates already. Nevertheless, carriers now have a 90-day window to decide once again if they want to participate in the marketplace in 2018.

Whether or not one considers the demise of the ACA to be good or bad, most everyone agrees that ending these subsidy payments will serve to further erode the law’s sustainability. With this in mind, it’s possible a bi-partisan congressional effort could restore them. It’s also possible that Democrats could threaten to shut down the government at the next appropriations deadline this December if payments are not reinstated.

What should we expect next?

Obviously, it’s hard to predict what these two moves will mean. About the EO, it should be noted that what’s enacted by executive order can be ended by executive order, which practically speaking could be in as little as three years. With that in mind, we have to wonder how much prospective time, effort and investment will insurers and industry experts be willing to risk building new programs that could be summarily halted by the pen of a subsequent administration?

Nevertheless, while it will take a little time for details to emerge, the opportunity to create lower cost plans by eliminating some of the coverage elements required under ACA is significant enough we’re likely to see a multitude of new “skinny” and short-term benefit plans emerge. Likewise, the market opportunity created by association plans will result in many within the industry trying to determine how best to exploit it.

With regard to the CSR payments, while commentary and political positioning will continue to take center stage, it’s hard to envision a mass exodus of insurers at this point. This is due to the fact it’s difficult to believe those that have planned to participate in 2018 hadn’t anticipated this possibility. Especially when most are working without much competition in their respective markets and, hence, are less sensitive to the pressure of competitive pricing.

How does this affect me as an employer?

The change in the CSR will not have a direct effect on you or your plan. However, as we’ve already seen fewer options and higher premiums for individual plans through the marketplace might mean more employees and dependents seek enrollment in employer plans. For individuals who previously found dependent coverages less expensive through the marketplace, that may no longer be the case. It’s also true, of course, as insurance carriers seek growth and profitability the economics of one segment inevitably affect strategy and pricing in another.

The EO is likely to have a more immediate impact on the employer market. If current governing rules are rewritten as expected, some association sponsored plans could begin appearing. This would presumably be true for both employer and individual plans, and as mentioned earlier would likely include the return of limited benefit and catastrophic-only type plans, as well.

Be assured Truss will monitor developments closely and work aggressively to both anticipate and maximize opportunities that might benefit our clients.

In the meantime, should you have any questions or simply want to discuss any of this in greater detail, please reach out to your Truss consultant or service team.

12 Oct

Employees: A Risky Business

By Jeff DeWolf, Human Capital Practice Leader

He could feel the heat rise in his cheeks as a small bead of sweat rolled off his forehead and down to the tip of his nose. With a flick of his index finger, the drop of sweat was quickly removed.

“Could you, uh, repeat the question?” Bill Thomas asked as he looked over at the judge and then back to the opposing attorney.

“Please explain what your firm has done to prevent the events which Miss Johnson claims have occurred?” replied EEOC lead attorney, Mark Jackson.

Bill’s mind raced. He thought about the claims of sexual harassment Sherry Johnson had leveled against a member of his management team. While he didn’t doubt her claims, he truly couldn’t believe that the behavior had continued for three months even after she reported it to her boss.

“I, uh, I mean we as a company would never condone this behavior,” Bill stated as authoritatively as he could. “We have a policy against it! It’s in our employee handbook, I believe. Isn’t that right, Janet?”

Janet Baker, Bill’s HR Director, squirmed in her seat, unsure if she was supposed to–or even allowed to–respond.

“Thank you, Mr. Thomas,” came Jackson’s reply, essentially ending Bill’s fumbling for an answer. “Just so I’m clear… Are you saying that your effort to protect your employees from discrimination and harassment in your workplace was the possible insertion of a policy statement in your handbook?”

“Well, uh, yes, I mean, no. I mean, everyone knows that the company frowns on this stuff!” Bill stammered with a rising note of defensiveness.

“So, let’s say the policy is in your handbook,” Mark interrupted. “When was your handbook last updated? When was the last time the policy itself was communicated to employees? What…”

“Objection!” interjected Bill’s attorney. “How many questions will counsel ask before allowing my client to answer?”

“Sustained. Mr. Jackson, please allow the witness to answer one question at a time,” directed the judge. “Mr. Thomas, you may answer the questions if you can remember them.”

“Uh, well, to be honest, I’m not entirely sure when our handbook was last updated,” began Bill. “And as I far as I know, employees are asked to read and agree to the workplace conduct policy on their first day.”

“So, the accused harasser read and agreed to comply with the workplace conduct policy on his first day?” asked Mark Jackson, one of the EEOC’s winningest attorneys.

“Absolutely,” replied Bill confidently. “Janet makes sure of it.”

“Okay,” said Jackson. “When was he hired?”

“Excuse me?” asked Bill.

“The date, Mr. Thomas. When was the accused hired?” repeated Jackson with a hint of irritation in his voice.

“I have no idea!” Bill said, almost shouting now. “He’s been here longer than I have! Probably twenty years or more! What does that have to do…”

Jackson interrupted him. “I think we’ve heard enough, your honor. This witness, the CEO of a successful manufacturing company, has done virtually nothing to protect employees from discrimination and harassment in his workplace. He essentially trusts employees to remember a piece of paper they read and signed during their first day on the job.”

Bill’s heart sank. He glared across the room at his HR Director, who decided at that moment that she needed to check her phone for some important information. He looked to the left and made eye contact with company attorney and CFO Harry James. Harry shook his head ever so slightly, and with eyes slightly widened, mouthed the words… “We’re in trouble.”

—————————

If reading the above account made you as uncomfortable as it did me while I wrote it, then it did its job. Unfortunately, while the story above is fiction, stories like it play out in real life all too often.

Having employees is a risky proposition, but we often don’t invest much in mitigation strategies for that risk. We buy insurance in case our buildings burn down. We invest in security systems to prevent the loss of valuable equipment or information. We even pay IT experts to prevent data breaches which could ruin our business.

The EEOC has been very clear about what they consider to be responsible corporate behavior for the prevention of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation: effective training, clear policies, solid reporting procedures, and responsiveness when incidents occur. It even spelled out what is viewed as effective training. I’ve seen those expectations, and watching an awkward, outdated, sexual harassment video from the seventies is not it. In fact, the EEOC has essentially sent the message that if you “check the box” with a policy statement and add minimal online training, you won’t receive any real credit for preventing bad practices in your workplace.

Truss encourages our clients to see this as simple risk management. It can help protect you financially, but best of all, it helps you ensure a safe, respectful, and fair environment for employees.

We offer the program a “Workplace of Respect™” that meets the EEOC’s standards of effective training. Leveraging adult learning theory and brain science, it uses a common-sense approach by appealing to the participant to treat others with decency and honor. While providing the basic legal information, it’s intended to change hearts and minds as people start to see others as valuable and deserving of respect.

For more information about Truss’ offerings in this or other areas, contact Jeff DeWolf, at 913-735-5354 or jdewolf@trussadvantage.com

05 Oct

10 tips for spotting a phishing email

Phishing emails flow into inboxes year-round, especially during the holidays. Here are some clues to help your users spot “fishy” emails.

By Brien Posey
This article originally appeared in the TechRepublic blog.

Every day countless phishing emails are sent to unsuspecting victims all over the world. While some of these messages are so outlandish that they are obvious frauds, others can be a bit more convincing. So how do you tell the difference between a phishing message and a legitimate message? Unfortunately, there is no one single technique that works in every situation, but there are a number of things that you can look for. This article lists 10 of them.

1: The message contains a mismatched URL

One of the first things I recommend checking in a suspicious email message is the integrity of any embedded URLs. Oftentimes the URL in a phishing message will appear to be perfectly valid. However, if you hover your mouse over the top of the URL, you should see the actual hyperlinked address (at least in Outlook). If the hyperlinked address is different from the address that is displayed, the message is probably fraudulent or malicious.

2: URLs contain a misleading domain name

People who launch phishing scams often depend on their victims not knowing how the DNS naming structure for domains works. The last part of a domain name is the most telling. For example, the domain name info.brienposey.com would be a child domain of brienposey.com because brienposey.com appears at the end of the full domain name (on the right-hand side). Conversely, brienposey.com.maliciousdomain.com would clearly not have originated from brienposey.com because the reference to brienposey.com is on the left side of the domain name.

I have seen this trick used countless times by phishing artists as a way of trying to convince victims that a message came from a company like Microsoft or Apple. The phishing artist simply creates a child domain bearing the name Microsoft, Apple, or whatever. The resulting domain name looks something like this: Microsoft.maliciousdomainname.com.

3: The message contains poor spelling and grammar

Whenever a large company sends out a message on behalf of the company as a whole, the message is usually reviewed for spelling, grammar, and legality, among other things. So if a message is filled with poor grammar or spelling mistakes, it probably didn’t come from a major corporation’s legal department.

4: The message asks for personal information

No matter how official an email message might look, it’s always a bad sign if the message asks for personal information. Your bank doesn’t need you to send it your account number. It already knows what that is. Similarly, a reputable company should never send an email asking for your password, credit card number, or the answer to a security question.

5: The offer seems too good to be true

There is an old saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. That holds especially true for email messages. If you receive a message from someone unknown to you who is making big promises, the message is probably a scam.

6: You didn’t initiate the action

Just yesterday I received an email message informing me I had won the lottery!!!! The only problem is that I never bought a lottery ticket. If you get a message informing you that you have won a contest you did not enter, you can bet that the message is a scam.

7: You’re asked to send money to cover expenses

One telltale sign of a phishing email is that you will eventually be asked for money. You might not get hit up for cash in the initial message. But sooner or later, phishing artists will likely ask for money to cover expenses, taxes, fees, or something similar. If that happens, you can bet that it’s a scam.

8: The message makes unrealistic threats

Although most of the phishing scams try to trick people into giving up cash or sensitive information by promising instant riches, some phishing artists use intimidation to scare victims into giving up information. If a message makes unrealistic threats, it’s probably a scam. Let me give you an example.

About 10 years ago, I received an official-looking letter that was allegedly from US Bank. Everything in the letter seemed completely legit except for one thing. The letter said my account had been compromised and that if I did not submit a form (which asked for my account number) along with two picture IDs, my account would be canceled and my assets seized.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that it’s illegal for a bank to close your account and seize your assets simply because you didn’t respond to an email message. Not only that, but the only account I had with US Bank was a car lease. There were no deposits to seize because I did not have a checking or savings account with the bank.

9: The message appears to be from a government agency

Phishing artists who want to use intimidation don’t always pose as a bank. Sometimes they’ll send messages claiming to have come from a law enforcement agency, the IRS, the FBI, or just about any other entity that might scare the average law-abiding citizen.

I can’t tell you how government agencies work outside the United States. But here, government agencies don’t normally use email as an initial point of contact. That isn’t to say that law enforcement and other government agencies don’t use email. However, law enforcement agencies follow certain protocols. They don’t engage in email-based extortion—at least, not in my experience.

10: Something just doesn’t look right

In Las Vegas, casino security teams are taught to look for anything that JDLR—just doesn’t look right, as they call it. The idea is that if something looks off, there’s probably a good reason why. This same principle almost always applies to email messages. If you receive a message that seems suspicious, it’s usually in your best interest to avoid acting on the message.

 

04 Oct

October 2017 Newsletter

October 2017 Newsletter

EMPLOYERS MUST START USING THE NEW FORM I-9 NOW

On July 17, 2017, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a new Form I-9 to be used to verify employment eligibility for new hires. Employers must complete the new Form I-9 for any employee hired on or after September 18, 2017; continued use of the old form will subject employers to significant monetary penalties.

The revisions to the new form are limited to updates in the List of Acceptable documents; specifically, List C has been renumbered and updated to include the current versions of the certification or report of birth forms issued by the U.S. State Department.

Employers are reminded that they must ensure that all new employees complete the Form I-9 within the first three (3) days of employment. The new Form I-9 may be accessed at: https://www.uscis.gov/i-9

10 TIPS FOR SPOTTING A PHISHING EMAIL

From TechRepublic
Every day countless phishing emails are sent to unsuspecting victims all over the world. While some of these messages are so outlandish that they are obvious frauds, others can be a bit more convincing. So how do you tell the difference between a phishing message and a legitimate message? Unfortunately, there is no one single technique that works in every situation, but there are a number of things that you can look for. READ MORE

EMPLOYEES: A RISKY BUSINESS

By Jeff DeWolf, Human Capital Practice Leader

He could feel the heat rise in his cheeks as a small bead of sweat rolled off his forehead and down to the tip of his nose. With a flick of his index finger, the drop of sweat was quickly removed.

“Could you, uh, repeat the question?” Bill Thomas asked as he looked over at the judge and then back to the opposing attorney.

“Please explain what your firm has done to prevent the events which Miss Johnson claims have occurred?” replied EEOC lead attorney, Mark Jackson.

Bill’s mind raced. He thought about the claims of sexual harassment Sherry Johnson had leveled against a member of his management team. While he didn’t doubt her claims, he truly couldn’t believe that the behavior had continued for three months even after she reported it to her boss.

“I, uh, I mean we as a company would never condone this behavior,” Bill stated as authoritatively as he could. “We have a policy against it! It’s in our employee handbook, I believe. Isn’t that right, Janet?”

Janet Baker, Bill’s HR Director, squirmed in her seat, unsure if she was supposed to–or even allowed to–respond.

“Thank you, Mr. Thomas,” came Jackson’s reply, essentially ending Bill’s fumbling for an answer. “Just so I’m clear… Are you saying that your effort to protect your employees from discrimination and harassment in your workplace was the possible insertion of a policy statement in your handbook?”

“Well, uh, yes, I mean, no. I mean, everyone knows that the company frowns on this stuff!” Bill stammered with a rising note of defensiveness.

“So, let’s say the policy is in your handbook,” Mark interrupted. “When was your handbook last updated? When was the last time the policy itself was communicated to employees? What…”

“Objection!” interjected Bill’s attorney. “How many questions will counsel ask before allowing my client to answer?”

“Sustained. Mr. Jackson, please allow the witness to answer one question at a time,” directed the judge. “Mr. Thomas, you may answer the questions if you can remember them.”

“Uh, well, to be honest, I’m not entirely sure when our handbook was last updated,” began Bill. “And as I far as I know, employees are asked to read and agree to the workplace conduct policy on their first day.”

“So, the accused harasser read and agreed to comply with the workplace conduct policy on his first day?” asked Mark Jackson, one of the EEOC’s winningest attorneys.

“Absolutely,” replied Bill confidently. “Janet makes sure of it.”

“Okay,” said Jackson. “When was he hired?”

“Excuse me?” asked Bill.

“The date, Mr. Thomas. When was the accused hired?” repeated Jackson with a hint of irritation in his voice.

“I have no idea!” Bill said, almost shouting now. “He’s been here longer than I have! Probably twenty years or more! What does that have to do…”

Jackson interrupted him. “I think we’ve heard enough, your honor. This witness, the CEO of a successful manufacturing company, has done virtually nothing to protect employees from discrimination and harassment in his workplace. He essentially trusts employees to remember a piece of paper they read and signed during their first day on the job.”

Bill’s heart sank. He glared across the room at his HR Director, who decided at that moment that she needed to check her phone for some important information. He looked to the left and made eye contact with company attorney and CFO Harry James. Harry shook his head ever so slightly, and with eyes slightly widened, mouthed the words… “We’re in trouble.”

—————————

If reading the above account made you as uncomfortable as it did me while I wrote it, then it did its job. Unfortunately, while the story above is fiction, stories like it play out in real life all too often.

Having employees is a risky proposition, but we often don’t invest much in mitigation strategies for that risk. We buy insurance in case our buildings burn down. We invest in security systems to prevent the loss of valuable equipment or information. We even pay IT experts to prevent data breaches which could ruin our business.

The EEOC has been very clear about what they consider to be responsible corporate behavior for the prevention of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation: effective training, clear policies, solid reporting procedures, and responsiveness when incidents occur. It even spelled out what is viewed as effective training. I’ve seen those expectations, and watching an awkward, outdated, sexual harassment video from the seventies is not it. In fact, the EEOC has essentially sent the message that if you “check the box” with a policy statement and add minimal online training, you won’t receive any real credit for preventing bad practices in your workplace.

Truss encourages our clients to see this as simple risk management. It can help protect you financially, but best of all, it helps you ensure a safe, respectful, and fair environment for employees.

We offer the program a “Workplace of Respect™” that meets the EEOC’s standards of effective training. Leveraging adult learning theory and brain science, it uses a common-sense approach by appealing to the participant to treat others with decency and honor. While providing the basic legal information, it’s intended to change hearts and minds as people start to see others as valuable and deserving of respect.

For more information about Truss’ offerings in this or other areas, contact Jeff DeWolf, at 913-735-5354 or jdewolf@trussadvantage.com

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Have a safe and Happy Halloween from your friends at Truss!

25 Sep

Employers Must Start Using the New Form I-9 Now

On July 17, 2017, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a new Form I-9 to be used to verify employment eligibility for new hires. Employers must complete the new Form I-9 for any employee hired on or after September 18, 2017; continued use of the old form will subject employers to significant monetary penalties.

The revisions to the new form are limited to updates in the List of Acceptable documents; specifically, List C has been renumbered and updated to include the current versions of the certification or report of birth forms issued by the U.S. State Department.

Employers are reminded that they must ensure that all new employees complete the Form I-9 within the first three (3) days of employment. The new Form I-9 may be accessed at: https://www.uscis.gov/i-9

14 Sep

TrussU: Marijuana and Other Substances in the Workplace

Join us September 27, 2017, for an afternoon webinar to discuss testing options and tips on crafting a drug and alcohol policy that best fits your company.

Date: Sept. 27, 2017
Time: 1:30 – 2:30 p.m. CDT
Guest Speaker: Sarah Borsten, PHR, Training Specialist and Insight Program Manager for HRAnswerLink
Register today: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2584409058727501827 

With recreational and medical marijuana now legal in multiple states, employers may be left wondering what restrictions they can, and can’t, have in the workplace. We’ll discuss the legal landscape for both recreational and medical marijuana use, including potential ADA issues. And we’ll go over other drugs employers should be concerned about.