The relationship between employer and worker is not always straightforward. Even the IRS has made it clear that it’s not easy to classify independent contractors and employees. Every case they evaluate is different based on a wide variety of factors.

In the case of Acosta v. Jani-King of Oklahoma, Inc., the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s ruling, instructing the district court to consider “economic reality factors,” including:

• The degree of control exerted over the worker;
• The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss;
• The worker’s investment in the business;
• The permanence of the working relationship;
• The degree of skill required to perform the work; and
• The extent to which the work is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.” 

Not only will misclassifying a worker as an independent contractor, rather than as an employee, lead to costly fines and penalties, it violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and IRS regulations.
​
Continue reading for an article by CHUBB that provides important information on the risks of misclassifying workers.

'While employers try to ensure their employees are provided a safe workplace by reducing the chances of accidents and injuries, it's important not to overlook employee stress. 
​
Too much stress or too many responsibilities can greatly increase employees’ chances of not only burnout, but also making costly mistakes. A worse-case scenario is that if they are engaged in more labor-intensive occupations, too much stress can lead to accidents.

When selecting workers’ compensation coverage, employers may choose a fully-insured or self-funded plan, or they may participate in a self-insured group.

Fully-insured workers’ compensation
Under a fully-insured plan, employers pay a premium to an insurance carrier. In exchange, the insurance carrier assumes the financial and legal risks, paying all claim-related expenses. The benefits of this type of arrangement include:

• Less risk because the insurance company handles the claims
• Administrative costs are included in the premium
• Works best for smaller employers that do not have the resources needed to administer their own insurance plan

Advances in technology affect everything and everyone, including workplace safety. The workforce is more tech-savvy than ever before, leading to changes in how we work and the availability of data.
​
With many safety programs out of date, it’s time to put technology to work to improve safety in the workplace.  An article in Safety and Health Magazine suggest four ways technology can respond to today’s safety needs.

Injuries due to slips and falls are one of the most frequently reported workers’ compensation claims. While these accidents can happen anywhere, any time, they typically spike during the winter months. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 20,000 workplace injuries due to falls from snow, sleet, and ice occurred in 2016. Of those, 28 percent resulted in more than a month off of work.
​
Employees and visitors alike are at risk, but with a proactive safety plan, slips and falls can be prevented.

We have all dealt with unprecedented change in the Health Insurance marketplace over the past decade. While that pace of change has slowed, there is no such thing as status quo.

A trend that we are seeing accelerate is insurers attempting to manage their costs by transferring costs to other insurance policies.  Iowa’s two primary health insurers – Wellmark and United Health Care (UHC) (and we are certain many others in Iowa and all states) are part of this trend.

Simply, if you are eligible to be covered under a Workers Compensation policy, UHC and Wellmark have confirmed with us they will not pay medical bills associated with injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment.

Note that this does not say that they won’t pay for injuries that occur if you are actually covered by a Workers Compensation policy.  Their wording and intent is to exclude claims if you are eligible for a Workers Compensation policy, whether you are actually covered or not. The test is if you could have coverage and just about anyone “could have” Workers Compensation coverage.

This change affects two kinds of “employees.”