<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Texas HR Law Update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://texashrlaw.com/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://texashrlaw.com</link>
	<description>Resources and Perspectives for Today's Marketplace</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Avoid the costly mistake of misclassification by Top Ten HR Documentation Blunders &#124; Texas HR Law Update</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=149#comment-315</link>
		<dc:creator>Top Ten HR Documentation Blunders &#124; Texas HR Law Update</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=149#comment-315</guid>
		<description>[...] to maintain in the workplace,&#8221; and discussed the problems inherent in misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor or a non-exempt employee as [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to maintain in the workplace,&#8221; and discussed the problems inherent in misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor or a non-exempt employee as [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Texas Supreme Court Ruling Favors Enforcement of Non-Competition Agreements by Non-competes and the Employer &#124; Texas HR Law Update</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=340#comment-314</link>
		<dc:creator>Non-competes and the Employer &#124; Texas HR Law Update</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=340#comment-314</guid>
		<description>[...] owners wanting to enforce their non-compete agreements.  This year has provided them with some good case law to support the enforceability of properly-crafted non-compete [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] owners wanting to enforce their non-compete agreements.  This year has provided them with some good case law to support the enforceability of properly-crafted non-compete [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on E-Verify Delayed Again by Brittancus</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=334#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Brittancus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 23:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=334#comment-120</guid>
		<description>U.S. Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz states she has a replacement for E-VERIFY?  But with all the lies our Politicians tell us, such as no more AMNESTIES, or completing the Border Fence, how can we--THE PEOPLE--tell fact from fiction?   Is this so-called replacement just an intentional hold-up while the negotiate secret committee's to push another path to citizenship, as which the 1986 was a catastrophe and and downright fraud.  The parasite businesses that hire illegal workers remain unscathed up to now, but E-Verify would put an end to that large profit run.  It's easy to work off the books, so that they pay nothing towards the upkeep of their illegal labor, while the US taxpayer subsidizes both.  So battle stations are being called in the next months and anti-illegal aliens advocates are ready for the fight. E-Verify should be a permanent instrument and not just for new workers to determine illegal labor in the workplace?

May 1st, is going to show the American taxpayer where their taxes are going?  Millions of people ready to demonstrate in the streets, for comprehensive Immigration reform and will probably get it under the Democratic-Socialist majority. If they become de facto legal the consequences will be very expensive for the population, because then we will be adding to the hundreds of billions of dollars already extracted from your paycheck in Federal mandates for benefits. Remember with another Amnesty it will be a commitment for billions of unseen dollars, being appropriated. Once legalized the newcomers can sponsor their whole family group adding to the chaos, and more money to support them. After this 2nd Amnesty the next waves of impoverished will keep coming--and never stopping.

Those who sponsor immigrants who are relatives sign an affidavit of financial support and must shoulder financial responsibility by law. But it is riddled with loopholes, so new arrivals and their U.S.-born children (anchor  Babies--intentional misinterpretation of emancipation for African Slaves after the Civil War) often become lifelong public burdens. A blockbuster example is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Economics writer Ed Rubenstein’s new report, “The Earned Income Tax Credit and Illegal Immigration: A Study in Fraud, Abuse, and Liberal Activism,” The author says immigrants collected about $12 billion from the EITC last year, the majority not paying a cent towards it. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found high school-dropouts-who headed households pay an average of $9,700 a year in taxes but collect an average of $32,138 a year in benefits. All this money in real dollars is procured from unaware taxpayers. Surf NUMBERSUSA for the truth not the propaganda you expect for the open border zealots.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>U.S. Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz states she has a replacement for E-VERIFY?  But with all the lies our Politicians tell us, such as no more AMNESTIES, or completing the Border Fence, how can we&#8211;THE PEOPLE&#8211;tell fact from fiction?   Is this so-called replacement just an intentional hold-up while the negotiate secret committee&#8217;s to push another path to citizenship, as which the 1986 was a catastrophe and and downright fraud.  The parasite businesses that hire illegal workers remain unscathed up to now, but E-Verify would put an end to that large profit run.  It&#8217;s easy to work off the books, so that they pay nothing towards the upkeep of their illegal labor, while the US taxpayer subsidizes both.  So battle stations are being called in the next months and anti-illegal aliens advocates are ready for the fight. E-Verify should be a permanent instrument and not just for new workers to determine illegal labor in the workplace?</p>
<p>May 1st, is going to show the American taxpayer where their taxes are going?  Millions of people ready to demonstrate in the streets, for comprehensive Immigration reform and will probably get it under the Democratic-Socialist majority. If they become de facto legal the consequences will be very expensive for the population, because then we will be adding to the hundreds of billions of dollars already extracted from your paycheck in Federal mandates for benefits. Remember with another Amnesty it will be a commitment for billions of unseen dollars, being appropriated. Once legalized the newcomers can sponsor their whole family group adding to the chaos, and more money to support them. After this 2nd Amnesty the next waves of impoverished will keep coming&#8211;and never stopping.</p>
<p>Those who sponsor immigrants who are relatives sign an affidavit of financial support and must shoulder financial responsibility by law. But it is riddled with loopholes, so new arrivals and their U.S.-born children (anchor  Babies&#8211;intentional misinterpretation of emancipation for African Slaves after the Civil War) often become lifelong public burdens. A blockbuster example is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Economics writer Ed Rubenstein’s new report, “The Earned Income Tax Credit and Illegal Immigration: A Study in Fraud, Abuse, and Liberal Activism,” The author says immigrants collected about $12 billion from the EITC last year, the majority not paying a cent towards it. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found high school-dropouts-who headed households pay an average of $9,700 a year in taxes but collect an average of $32,138 a year in benefits. All this money in real dollars is procured from unaware taxpayers. Surf NUMBERSUSA for the truth not the propaganda you expect for the open border zealots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Federal Contractors: E-Verify is Mandatory as of January 15, 2009! by Mary Ann Hisel</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=135#comment-116</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Ann Hisel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=135#comment-116</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Elaine - that means a lot coming from an actual immigration attorney!  What do you think about the recent news that implementation is pushed back even longer?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Elaine - that means a lot coming from an actual immigration attorney!  What do you think about the recent news that implementation is pushed back even longer?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Reminder - Employers Must Use Revised Form I-9 in Hiring by E-Verify Delayed Again &#124; Texas HR Law Update</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=313#comment-115</link>
		<dc:creator>E-Verify Delayed Again &#124; Texas HR Law Update</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=313#comment-115</guid>
		<description>[...] this month we reminded you that the government was requiring all employers to use the newly revised I-9 Form and we’ve also [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] this month we reminded you that the government was requiring all employers to use the newly revised I-9 Form and we’ve also [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Potential Revolutionary Changes for Labor Management Relations by Without fail&#8230; news alerts that impact your business &#124; Texas HR Law Update</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=303#comment-114</link>
		<dc:creator>Without fail&#8230; news alerts that impact your business &#124; Texas HR Law Update</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=303#comment-114</guid>
		<description>[...] filibusters on bills such as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which we’ve discussed here previously, and enact President Barack Obama&#8217;s top legislative [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] filibusters on bills such as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which we’ve discussed here previously, and enact President Barack Obama&#8217;s top legislative [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on House Passes Act to Make Pay-Discrimination Suits Easier by House of Representatives Passes LLFPA &#124; Business &#38; Employment Law</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=223#comment-61</link>
		<dc:creator>House of Representatives Passes LLFPA &#124; Business &#38; Employment Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:22:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=223#comment-61</guid>
		<description>[...] V&#173;ie&#173;w p&#173;os&#173;t: Ho&#173;us&#173;e&#173; o&#173;f R&#173;e&#173;pr&#173;e&#173;s&#173;e&#173;ntati&#173;ve&#173;s&#38;#17... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] V&#173;ie&#173;w p&#173;os&#173;t: Ho&#173;us&#173;e&#173; o&#173;f R&#173;e&#173;pr&#173;e&#173;s&#173;e&#173;ntati&#173;ve&#173;s&amp;#17&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Happy New Year! 2009, The Year of Compliance by Liz</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=178#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Liz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=178#comment-50</guid>
		<description>With regard to E-Verify, here's the link to a legal opinion paper from an attorney at Michael Best &#38; Friedrich regarding how E-Verify applies for your responsibility regarding independent contractors and sub-contractors. 

http://www.mbopartners.com/blog/categories/E-Verify.html?id=91&#38;category=11&#38;type=43

Interesting stuff -- government contractors who fail to comply with E-Verify may be debarred from doing business with the government, but compliance isn't exactly simple. If you have misclassified employees as contractors (and therefore not performed E-Verify on them) then you may be out of compliance. But to perform E-Verify on contractors is inappropriate, probably illegal, and can tilt the classification decision (in the event of a misclassification audit) in the direction of making these people look like employees, as you have treated them as employees for purposes of verifying employment eligibility. 

In conclusion, according to the paper (available full text at that link) your E-Verify compliance is ONLY as good as your independent contractor classification compliance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With regard to E-Verify, here&#8217;s the link to a legal opinion paper from an attorney at Michael Best &amp; Friedrich regarding how E-Verify applies for your responsibility regarding independent contractors and sub-contractors. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.mbopartners.com/blog/categories/E-Verify.html?id=91&amp;category=11&amp;type=43" rel="nofollow">http://www.mbopartners.com/blog/categories/E-Verify.html?id=91&amp;category=11&amp;type=43</a></p>
<p>Interesting stuff &#8212; government contractors who fail to comply with E-Verify may be debarred from doing business with the government, but compliance isn&#8217;t exactly simple. If you have misclassified employees as contractors (and therefore not performed E-Verify on them) then you may be out of compliance. But to perform E-Verify on contractors is inappropriate, probably illegal, and can tilt the classification decision (in the event of a misclassification audit) in the direction of making these people look like employees, as you have treated them as employees for purposes of verifying employment eligibility. </p>
<p>In conclusion, according to the paper (available full text at that link) your E-Verify compliance is ONLY as good as your independent contractor classification compliance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Federal Contractors: E-Verify is Mandatory as of January 15, 2009! by Elaine Martin</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=135#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>Elaine Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=135#comment-33</guid>
		<description>In case that link is too long, try this: http://tinyurl.com/4v55yu.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In case that link is too long, try this: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/4v55yu" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/4v55yu</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Federal Contractors: E-Verify is Mandatory as of January 15, 2009! by Elaine Martin</title>
		<link>http://texashrlaw.com/?p=135#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>Elaine Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashrlaw.com/?p=135#comment-32</guid>
		<description>Great post for employers.  There are FAQs on E-verify generally on the CIS website here: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4ee4be0cbcf90110VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post for employers.  There are FAQs on E-verify generally on the CIS website here: <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4ee4be0cbcf90110VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD" rel="nofollow">http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4ee4be0cbcf90110VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
