Well, it’s been a while since I posted and I thank you all for being patient with me. I decided to take the month of March off from just about everything, including writing. But now I’m back and hopefully better than ever. So, what’s going on?
First off, this week is the week of the dreaded I-9 revision barring any further Federal guidelines. From SHRM:
Unless there is a last-minute change by the Obama administration, employers will be required to use a revised version of the employment eligibility form known as the I-9 form effective April 3, 2009.
According to an interim rule published in December 2008 by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), employers were supposed to begin using the revised verification form on Feb. 2, 2009. However, when President Obama took office, the White House issued a directive to all federal agencies asking them to review regulations introduced by the Bush administration that had not taken effect before Jan. 20, 2009.
USCIS officials stated that the 60-day delay should provide adequate time to complete a full review of the new form and employment verification requirements.
Per my earlier blog post, you can find the revised I-9 form here.
What else? Oh yeah, here’s one for the conundrum books. It turns out that union members are boycotting their own union.
Dozens of employees of the Service Employees International Union picketed their own union Friday over its decision to lay off about 75 workers.
The staffers marched outside SEIU headquarters in Washington as they yelled into bullhorns, passed out flyers and chanted, “Justice for all, not just some.”
“This union is supposed to be at the forefront of the progressive movement, but it can’t seem to follow its own ideology,” said Malcolm Harris, president of the Union of Union Representatives, which represents 210 SEIU organizers and field staff around the country.
The UUR has filed unfair labor practice charges and age and race discrimination claims against SEIU. Harris called SEIU leaders “hypocrites” for calling out corporations that shed workers, yet moving to lay off their own employees.
On on the California front, Assembly Bill 53, a bill that would freeze the salaries for two years of those state workers making over $150,000 per year, has cleared its first hurdle. From the Sacramento Bee:
Assembly Bill 53 would impose a two-year ban on salary increases for about 785 state employees – primarily managers or executives – who make more than $150,000 annually.
The bill, sparked by projections of a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall, passed the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee without a dissenting vote Wednesday.
If signed into law, AB 53 would take effect next January for high wage earners in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of state government, including California State University and members of state boards or commissions.The bill would not apply to state legislators themselves, or to constitutional officers, because pay for those elected officials is set by an independent commission. But the measure would affect any of their aides paid $150,000 or more.AB 53 also excludes employees of the University of California, which has constitutional autonomy, and any state workers covered by labor contracts – thus, most of the state’s rank-and-file workers.
I’m sure there’s much, much, much more and I promise that I will be catching up over the next few days. Really. In the meanwhile, check out the SF Appeal. You may see a familiar name in the upcoming weeks.