Caveat Emptor
Parabeagle
3,085 Posts
Not a funny thing, but wanted to express a concern.
Just had one of our managers send me information she received on CD from some conference she attended regarding employment law - a quick-and-dirty guide to understanding the basics. Written by an attorney, endorsed by a major flag chain.
In his little checklist of things that should be in a personnel file, he notes that a "completed I-9" should be IN THE FILE!
And a copy of the "completed W-2 Withholding form!"
And a copy of the employee's military discharge!
I was appalled! Guess it just goes to show that a JD behind your name doesn't necessarily equal common sense.
Just had one of our managers send me information she received on CD from some conference she attended regarding employment law - a quick-and-dirty guide to understanding the basics. Written by an attorney, endorsed by a major flag chain.
In his little checklist of things that should be in a personnel file, he notes that a "completed I-9" should be IN THE FILE!
And a copy of the "completed W-2 Withholding form!"
And a copy of the employee's military discharge!
I was appalled! Guess it just goes to show that a JD behind your name doesn't necessarily equal common sense.
Comments
Sounds like the "JD" was attempting to drum up more business.
To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones, "We work a lot better we don't have so much.....aaaa help."
Have a great day,
Dutch2
>in a personnel file, he notes that a "completed
>I-9" should be IN THE FILE!
>
>And a copy of the "completed W-2 Withholding
>form!"
>
>And a copy of the employee's military discharge!
>
>
>I was appalled!
I'm not appalled. There's nothing illegal or inherently ill-advised about any of the three. Those are documents typically found in a personnel file in companies (Hundreds of thousands of them) which have not gone through a particularly anal analysis of what to segregate out of which file into which other file. A copy of the military discharge is typically an attachment to an application just like a resume is. An I-9 is no more required to be 'apart from' the personnel file than it is required to be 'contained In' the file. It's optional. When you say W-2, I assume you mean W-4.
There are good reasons to segregate all these forms out of the accessible personnel file; but, they by no means are universally excluded.
The guy who was going to Pago Pago is appalled?
And I have never in my career met an attorney (or another HR practitioner) who advocates maintaining the I-9 in the employee's personnel file. While it may not be inherently illegal, it's not among "best practices" either. Would you advocate asking applicants their age? That's not inherently illegal, but it's certainly not advisable.
I think the thing that concerned me is that this information was widely distributed to all franchisees who attended this conference and it doesn't represent the best advice out there.
Attorneys have no market on the opinion as to where you should maintain the I-9 form. Although, I have heard many say it makes no practical difference. I am, as you say, an 'HR Practitioner' and have been for 35 years, so you have now met one who advocates maintaining the I-9 in the personnel file! This is not a hot-button 'best practices' issue as it is not even remotely possible that you will ever, ever in your life undergo an investigation of I-9 files that may compromise your filing system. But, ultimately, it is entirely employer's option.
And to your other point, if the attorney mentioned W-2 when you knew he meant W-4, why didn't you simply ask him for clarification instead of criticizing him on the Forum. Anybody can make a simple mistake in a presentation.
Isn't that how Wal-Mart got into trouble for hiring illegal aliens?
I didn't see Para mention getting an I-9 from an applicant; I think even HR Practitioners with decades of experience would know that was wrong.
Also, I don't think he could have corrected the lawyer on the W2 / W4 slipup. Sounds like it was written in the software incorrectly, something he was just pointing out.
Para, I agree that just about anybody can give a seminar and publish software, right or wrong. I've spent some time at seminars like that myself.
Maybe we should think about what type of seminars we could get paid to do . . . it may be better than HR!
How about - "Learning the difference between Ignorant People and Arrogant People." Sometimes there's a fine line.
Any other suggestions?
Your post also has some childish backbiting and inuendo.
I think you attack Don D because he outed you and the metal boys. Chill out.
I get called a dunce and other names that were later edited out and I get blamed for attacking. How interesting. The only edits I made to my posts were to add information not take it out. That can't be said of other posters.
For the record, even though I insinuate otherwise, I'm not the metal boys!
How does one recognize when you are really, truly, honestly sincere and truthful? Is that when Titanium Man appears?
Not sure how the idea that I suggested collecting I-9s from applicants came about, but that is not what I said. Anyone who has spent more than a minute or two in the HR biz surely knows better, so I guess I was being upbraided for something that never occurred.
As the original post states, the attorney who wrote the checklist was advocating placing the completed I-9 in the EMPLOYEE'S personnel file. A prospect about which I am still shaking my head in disbelief.
Oh well, it's been fun to watch. Keep your guard up, no hitting below the belt and points will be deducted for excessive contact. x;-)
EDIT: "This is not a hot-button 'best practices' issue as it is not even remotely possible that you will ever, ever in your life undergo an investigation of I-9 files that may compromise your filing system."
Wish I'd known I had nothing to worry about when the I-9s at our Nevada property were audited by the feds a couple of years ago. If I'd known I didn't have to worry, I wouldn't have slept much better. x;-)