FIVE GOOD REASONS TO OFFER A 401(K) PLAN

With so many people concerned about the uncertain future of Social Security and the continued elimination of company pension plans, it's alarming how few small businesses offer their employees a 401(k) plan. According to the SBA, only 29% of full-time employees in companies with fewer than 25 employees currently work at firms that sponsor a retirement program.

In some ways, it's understandable: Most small-business owners just aren't retirement experts. Their time is consumed with growing their business and reinvesting their money back into the company.

When asked why they don't offer a 401(k), many business owners cite apprehensions about the cost, administrative burden and availability of plans for their small size. But what the majority don't know is that these beliefs are very common misconceptions.  

Today, small businesses of any size can easily establish a 401(k) plan that's inexpensive, quick and simple to implement, requires little time to administer, and makes a firm stronger and more competitive.

Here are five good reasons why I urge every small-business owner to offer a workplace retirement savings plan:

1. A 401(k) is much more affordable than you think. A new study from Fidelity Investments shows that 43% of small-business owners perceive cost as the major barrier to offering a 401(k). Compared to other operating expenses, however, a 401(k) program is relatively inexpensive. There are a number of excellent plans that cost as little as $300 per month -- that's less than many small businesses' monthly telecommunications bill.

Existing tax legislation also reduces the cost of starting a workplace savings plan. Employers can receive a tax credit that offsets 50% of the costs to establish a 401(k), up to $500 annually for each of the plan's first three years. A business can also receive a federal tax deduction of 15% to 40% of any contribution it makes to the plan.

And here's more good news: Congress recently passed the Pension Protection Act, which now makes permanent the 2001 tax relief legislation that allows business owners and employees to put a larger percentage of their annual salaries in a 401(k). In addition, the new legislation allows employers to automatically enroll employees in the company's 401(k) plan and legally raise their contributions without the employees' express consent.   BenefitsLink.com Entrepreneur. COM October 17, 2006

OSHA'S TOP 10 VIOLATIONS OF 2006

OSHA's list of the most-violated safety and health standards from October 2005 through September 2006 contains the usual suspects at the top but in a slightly different order.

Once again, OSHA's Scaffolding Standard was the most frequently cited standard overall. Among rules covering General Industry, the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) remains the most-violated standard but slipped from second last year to third this year on the overall list behind the Fall Protection Standard.

OSHA's top 10 most violated standards for fiscal year 2006 follow. The number of violations is accurate as of October 13, 2006.

• Scaffolding--General Requirements (1926.451) with 7,895 violations 
• Duty to Have Fall Protection (1926.501) with 5,746 violations
• Hazard Communication (1910.1200) with 5,586 violations
• Respiratory Protection (1910.134) with 3,410 violations
• Lockout/Tag out (1910.147) with 3,068 violations
• Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178) with 2,582 violations
• Electrical--Wiring Methods, Components, and Equipment for General Use (1910.305) with 2,396 violations
• Machine Guarding--General Requirements (1910.212) with 2,296 violations
• Ladders (1926.1053) with 2,115 violations
• Electrical--General Requirements (1910.303) with 1,791 violations

BLR.com October 18, 2006

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S OSHA FINES NEW RICHMOND, WIS., COMPANY $116,500 FOR WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH VIOLATIONS

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed $116,500 in fines against Domain Inc., New Richmond, Wis., for alleged willful and serious violations of workplace safety standards following an inspection at the dairy, beef and feed-products manufacturing facility where an employee fatality occurred in April.

The investigation resulted in citations issued to Domain Inc. alleging two willful and 14 serious violations of federal workplace safety regulations. The alleged willful violations addressed the company's failure to clearly and specifically develop energy control procedures for servicing and maintaining equipment and the failure to ensure that all hazardous energy sources were locked out. Serious violations addressed other deficiencies in the employer's lockout/tag-out program, deficiencies in confined-space programs, noise monitoring and electrical and machine-guarding issues.

OSHA officials opened their investigation on April 14 after receiving information that an employee had died at the facility that day. The employee was cleaning out a mixer and lower-surge hopper during a permit-required confined space entry. A pneumatically-operated drop gate that should have been locked out suddenly activated.

OSHA issues a serious citation when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. Violations are categorized as willful where there is either an intentional disregard or plain indifference to employee safety or OSHA regulations.

"When employers shirk their responsibility to keep the workplace free of such hazards, the results can be tragic for workers and their families," said OSHA area director Mark Hysell, Eau Claire, Wis.  October 16, 2006 www.osha.gov 

EEOC SETTLES SEX AND RACE SUIT AGAINST S & Z TOOL & DIE

$940,000 Settlement To Be Shared Among Class of African Americans and Women Denied Hire

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced Friday that it had resolved its lawsuit charging that S & Z Tool & Die Co. discriminated against African American and female applicants in hiring due to their race and sex.

The lawsuit (Case No. 1:03CV2023) was filed in September 2003 under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and resolved by consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division. The EEOC alleged that S & Z Tool & Die Company, a Cleveland-based metal manufacturing firm founded in 1943, engaged in a pattern and practice of refusing to hire female applicants for employment because of their sex, and black applicants because of their race. Molly Baron-Prodan and a class of other black and female applicants were denied hire into non-clerical entry-level positions such as laborer, or semi-skilled jobs such as machine operator.

The settlement provides $850,000 as monetary remedy to an estimated class of at least 20 women and black applicants who sought employment since 1999. Additionally, Baron-Prodan will receive an offer of employment and $90,000, which includes compensatory damages. Other provisions include annual EEO training to all supervisory and management employees and human resource employees, and the appointment of an EEO Coordinator.

EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair said, “This settlement will ensure that African Americans and women will have equal opportunity to compete in the workplace based upon their knowledge, skills, and abilities on a level playing field. We are also pleased that the settlement provides for extensive EEO training for management and human resource staff.” August 25, 2006 www.eeoc.gov

BATES V. UNITED PARCEL SERV., INC.

In the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): 1) when plaintiffs challenge an employer's use of a safety-based qualification standard, they need not, independently of that challenge, establish generally that they can perform the essential function of doing the job safely; 2) they are, however, required to show they are "qualified" in the sense that they satisfy prerequisites for the position, including safety-related prerequisites, not connected to the challenged criterion; 3) also, they have the burden to prove that the challenged qualification standard "screen[s] out or tend[s] to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities;" and 4) the burden then shifts to the employer to establish the business necessity defense.  October 16, 2006 FindLaw.com