Human Resource Blog

The date on the I-9 form needs to be the date the employee is actually filling the form out. This can be the hire date, rather than the start date.

Suppose Tom was offered a position at XYZ company yesterday and accepted. Today, Tom comes in to fill out his new hire paperwork, even though he is not actually starting the job for a week. Tom and his employer will put todays date on the paperwork.

You are right to question this, because employers cannot require applicants or interviewees to complete the I-9, or to show I-9 supporting documents. Using the I-9 as a screening tool is illegal discrimination, under the law. However, once the candidate has been offered and accepted a job, it is legal to have them fill out the I-9 and other paperwork, even prior to their first day of work. Many, if not most, employers do this.

While the overwhelming majority of employers have workers complete the I-9 on or before their first working day, technically the law permits the form to be complete up to 3 days after the employee starts work.

Employers who use E-Verify are also permitted by law to verify employment eligibility after the employee has accepted the job, but before he or she actually starts working. By law, if the E-Verify system is used, it must be done within 3 days after the employee starts work. (A new regulation for 2009 requires federal contractors to complete E-Verify with current employees on certain projects. )

Your sister needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Her boss can legally fire her at any moment, and there is nothing that your sister can do about it.

Even though the boss approached your sister and recruited her for the secretary position, that was not a guarantee of lifetime employment. Obviously, things are not working out in that position. The employer has told your sister so, repeatedly. This is not a group discussion, or a joint decision. The boss is giving your sister more than fair warning that her job is in jeopardy, and she needs to make other arrangements. Actually, this is not harassment at all. The boss is being very fair by warning your sister of the situation and giving her notice that she needs to find another job. This probably indicates that the company thinks well of your sister and would like to keep her, even though she is not performing up to standard in her current position.

Stress is part of life, and your sister\\\’s health problems are really not relevant to this situation. If every employee under stress at work became ill, most of us would have serious health problems most of the time.

Your sister has four options: 1) Take another position with the company — perhaps her old job is still available? 2) Look for another job outside the company, ASAP 3) Quit, realizing that she will not be eligible for unemployment benefits or 4) Wait to be fired and possibly collect unemployment.

Sorry to be so blunt, but the longer your sister puts off dealing with this problem, the worse it gets.

If I understand your question correctly. due to the closure of one location and a business reorganization, one administrative position was eliminated. The Administrator was asked to recommend one of three people for demotion to an entry level position, with a 40% decrease in pay. Presumably, the other two employees were laid off, although you do not say that. You wonder if the company was legally obligated to offer a severance package instead of the demotion.

The answer is most likely no. Even in California, there is no law that an employee must be offered a severance package. Terminated employees must be paid for all hours worked, plus any unused vacation, period. Employers are not obligated to offer employees any more than that.

It almost sounds as if the employee who was demoted would have preferred to have been fired. If that was the case, the employee could certainly have declined the new job. Many times, when an employee quits rather than accept a significant change in wages or working conditions, he or she is entitled to unemployment benefits.

Having the Administrator recommend one employee for the entry-level position is a bit unusual, but acceptable as long as the recommendation was made on job performance, not based on race, color, religion, age (over 40), national origin, sex, pregnancy, disability, or another protected category. (Basing the decision on any of these factors would be illegal discrimination.) It is more common for these types of decisions to be based on seniority, but not legally required.

Your question is not entirely clear, so if we have misunderstood it, feel free to post another one.

Yes, this is perfectly legal. The only thing unusual about this situation is that the employer told you why you were not hired. Most employers would just say that they found someone better qualified. What made that person better qalified is that they lived closer!

It is legal under federal law for an employer to refuse to hire someone for any reason, except discrimination based on race, color, religion, national ancestry, sex, pregnancy, disability, or age (over 40). (Some states include other protected groups, such as discrimination based on sexual orientation.) If you lived nearby in a neighborhood that was predominantly Italian, and you were Italian, and the company refused to hire you…that might be illegal discrimination. But it is very likely that the company would refuse to hire anyone for this position, who lived more than an hour away.

The company\’s actions even have research to back them up. Studies show that employees who earn less than $20,000 per year usually will last less than 3 months if they must travel more than 30 minutes to get to work. For employees who earn less than $50,000 per year, it\’s usually 60 minutes. I\’m sure you are the exception, but employers have to play the averages when hiring employees.

It is worth noting that in some areas (like Ames, Iowa or Springfield, Illinois) an hour each way is an extremely long commute. In other areas such as New Jersey and Chicago, it is considered just about average.

Not every employer will reject workers who live so far away. And it helps, if the issue comes up in the interview, to minimize it. \”It\’s just a straight shot up 294\” or whatever. In the past, some applicants have even told employers that they would consider moving closer, if they got the job.

There is no law that an employer must recall former employees when business picks up. (An exception might be if the employer had promised to do so, verbally or in writing. But even that agreement would be hard to enforce.) The reason most firms do is because it saves time in training new employees. And, the employer knows he is getting workers who will perform well. (Because if they did not perform well, you would have addressed it in the past, right? Right??)

The most common way to recall workers is by seniority. If you have two openings for drill press operators, you recall the two who were originally hired first, regardless of personalities or preferences. Using an objective method like this prevents allegations of discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, disability, etc. which are illegal under federal law.

But I sense from your question that there are certain employees you want back…and some that you do not. The best way to handle this is to not recall employees. Instead, contact all of them and let them know you currently have openings. Invite the former employees to apply for the new jobs, and interview all of them. You can then select who you will hire. It is perfectly legitimate to consider their prior performance in the hiring process. This tactic also allows you to hire the new employee at a lower wage, if appropriate, rather than simply returning a worker to his or her previous wage and benefit levels.