5Tuition Exchange Program Angel Kwolek-FollandAssociate Provost for Academic & Faculty AffairsIleana McCraySr. Administrative Assistant and UF TEP Liaison
6TEP Inc. Institutions Type (Carnegie Groupings) Number % of Category Public Institutions81%Private InstitutionsDoctoral Research Universities5147%Masters Colleges & Universities27272%Baccalaureate – Arts & Sciences13358%Baccalaureate – Diverse Fields10142%Specialized, Associate & Other4116%
7TEP Inc. Fees Membership Fees - 2014 Initiation Fee $350 (one-time charge)Annual Dues$500Participation Fees$35 per year for each Export exchange scholar sponsored.
8TEP participating schools in Florida 17 schools participate, 2 public (UF, UNF)University of Florida is the largest TEP participating institution in US, has been a member for 40+ years.10% of UF TEP applicants receive TEP.UF’s highest number of Exports/Imports (2009) averaged 25/31 respectively.
9Five Year Historical Semester Balance for UF Import SemestersExport Semesters+/-Historical Balance (Including )1,0831,0758464738940-22428-414-105 Year Subtotal169176-7Grand Total1,2521,2511
10UF Program Financials Charge to UF Employee: $5000/AY Subsidy from Provost’s office (for out-of-state tuition): variesLate fee to UF Employee: $250UF Undergrad tuition for Fall 2013 for 24 credits/year: $3600
11Pros vs Cons for UFProsProvides a low cost tuition option for faculty and staff.Access to private/costly institutions.Seniority pool varies each year.
12Pros vs Cons, continued Cons Seniority very high at UF, average yearsBudget cuts limited amount of import slotsTuition increases limit slots for imports, especially for out-of-state.Administrative time to manage program averages .30 FTE of staff and admin/year.Out-of-state tuition for imports $20,400/year for
13Institutional Management of the Program Tuition goes upOut-of-State tuition costFees2 Semesters; no Summer except Innovation AcademyExport Institution can charge employee’s for participation in the programNumber of credits students (Imports) can take per semesterWhether to allow graduate coursesProgram lengths (greater # of credits needed or Dual Degree programs).Late fees for Employees/Exports
21Wireless Internet Connection To connect to the wireless internet connection:Choose the “ufvistor” from the list of available WI-FI Networks on your deviceOpen a new Internet browser window and follow the promptsIf you have any problems, please let us know.
25OUTLINE OF TOPICS Collective Bargaining Updates Trends at the Negotiating TableLegislative Updates
26COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATES Waiving the Special MagistrateRefusal to Ratify/Self-HelpSurveying Employees for EvaluationsFinancial UrgencyCollective Bargaining Tips
27Waiving the Special Magistrate COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATESWaiving the Special Magistrate
28The Special Magistrate Impasse ProcessThe Special MagistrateTo Use or Not to Use?Parties may agree to waive the Special Magistrate HearingProceed directly to a hearing before the legislative bodyBoth parties must agreeMust be in writing
29The Special Magistrate Impasse ProcessThe Special MagistrateTo Use or Not to Use?Reasons to bypass Special MagistrateCostTimeNumber of Issues InvolvedPolitical ReasonsEmployer’s best interest is to bypass Special Magistrate in most casesDifficult to get union to agree
30The Special Magistrate Impasse ProcessThe Special MagistrateTo Use or Not to Use?Reasons not to bypass Special MagistrateSpecial Magistrate’s Recommendation may be helpful:Neutral perspectivePublic perceptionBargaining unit employeesLegislative bodyMay narrow issues
32Changing Proposals at Impasse Issue: Can you change or introduce new proposals at impasse?Port Orange I – Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118 v. City of Port Orange, 37 FPER 99 (2011), aff’d per curiam, 86 So.3d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
33PORT ORANGE IFactsParties were negotiating a successor agreement, and the City was seeking to reduce its pension costsReached an agreement, but it was not ratified by the UnionParties resumed negotiations – the City realized it could not impose pension increases without employee agreement, so it proposed a 6% wage reduction insteadCity declared impasse over several articles including Wages and PensionsAt the Special Magistrate hearing, the City proposed, for the first time, to reduce starting and top out pay by 6%
34PORT ORANGE IFactsParties filed several ULPs against each other, including several issuesIn part, the Union alleged that (1) the City unlawfully substituted a 6% wage reduction in lieu of pension contribution increases and (2) unlawfully proposed a 6% decrease in starting pay and top out pay for the first time at the special magistrate hearingHearing Officer concluded that it was not unlawful to propose a 6% wage reduction in lieu of the pension reform, but the City committed a ULP by proposing the 6% decrease in starting and top out pay for the first time at the hearing
35PORT ORANGE IOutcomePERC ruled that the 6% reduction in starting and top out pay was not a ULP because the parties are allowed to change their positions at any point during impasse provided that the amended proposals do not touch on a topic that was not previously negotiated at the bargaining tablePERC affirmed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that proposing a 6% wage reduction in lieu of a pension contribution increase was not unlawfulThe First DCA affirmed per curiam
37REFUSE TO RATIFY / SELF-HELP Issue: Union refuses to ratifyPort Orange II – City of Port Orange v. Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118, 38 FPER 244 (2011)Daytona Beach Fire Rescue Local 1162, IAFF v. City of Daytona Beach, 39 FPER 28 (2012), aff’d per curiam, 121 So.3d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
38PORT ORANGE IIFactsAfter PERC issued its order in Port Orange I, the City revised its proposed impasse agreement to the Union for ratificationThe Union refused to sign and submit for ratification, claiming confusing over the effective date of the 6% wage reduction
39The Unfair Labor Practice Charge PORT ORANGE IIThe Unfair Labor Practice ChargeThe City filed a ULP alleging that it was unlawful for the Union to refuse to sign and submit the agreement for ratificationThe Hearing Officer found that the Union’s refusal was unlawfulPERC affirmed, citing to City of Hollywood v. Hollywood Municipal Employees, Local 2432, AFSCME, 468 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) that the purpose of Section (4)(e), Florida Statutes, is to bring collective bargaining to an end at a point certain
40DAYTONA BEACHFactsNegotiation for a successor agreement were unsuccessful for three years in a row, the parties maintained status quoThe City declared impasse and the parties went to a Special Magistrate hearingUnion accepted recommendations on all issues, and the City rejected the recommendations on 4 issuesCity Council unanimously accepted the City’s position on all remaining disputed issues
41DAYTONA BEACHFactsCity sent the agreement to the Union, including the agreed upon issues and legislatively resolved issuesThe letter said that the Union’s failure to sign and return would be considered a refusal to send the agreement to ratificationUnion did not sign or returnCity implemented the agreement without a ratification vote
42The Unfair Labor Practice DAYTONA BEACHThe Unfair Labor PracticeThe Union filed a ULP alleging that the City bargained in bad faith by imposing the legislatively resolved impasse issues without a ratification voteHearing Officer held that the City’s sole remedy was to file an unfair labor practice and the City could not engage in self-help or establish a time limit for the Union’s ratification
43DAYTONA BEACH Final Order Reversed the Hearing Officer and held that a local government is “authorized to implement those legislatively resolved wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment for its employees represented by a union after a special magistrate proceeding when the union refuses to submit to the employees for ratification a signed copy of a complete agreement containing the resolved articles and the tentative agreements.”PERC receded from its “overly broad” comments in Communications Workers of America, Local 3170 v. City of Gainesville, 20 FPER (1994) that “a ratification vote is a condition precedent to implementation of legislatively resolved impasse issues.”
44DAYTONA BEACHOutcomeThis achieved legislative intent that “lack of final resolution of a bargaining impasse… creates potential turmoil” and that the impasse procedure was designed by the Legislature “to provide an end to a potentially endless bargaining process.” City of HollywoodLimitation – Self-Help when the Union refuses to ratifyAffirmed per curiam by the Fifth DCA
46THE RUSEIssue: Union agrees to adverse proposals to remove them from the impasse processAmalgamated Transit Union, Local 1593 v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit, 39 FPER 175 (2012), on appeal docketed at 2D (Fla. 2nd DCA)Naples I - Professional Firefighters of Naples, I.A.F.F. v. City of Naples, 39 FPER 329 (2013), aff’d per curiam, unpublished at 2013 WL (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013)Communications Workers of America v. School District of Indian River County, 40 FPER 32 (2013)
47ATU v. HARTFACTSThe parties began negotiating a successor agreement in June 2010 for a contract that expired in September 2010After 8 months of negotiations, HART declared impasse on six articlesThe parties went to a Special Magistrate hearing – recommendations were mostly favorable to the UnionThe Union accepted all six recommendations, HART accepted three and rejected three others
48ATU v. HART FACTS Scheduled a Legislative Body hearing Immediately prior to hearing, the Union’s attorney told HART it would agree to its proposals on the remaining issues, did not sign any TA but told the legislative body that they had reached a tentative agreementUnion conducted ratification vote – contract not ratifiedHART re-scheduled the legislative body hearing, Union claimed they had to return to bargaining accoding to Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1701 v. Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36 FPER 453 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)HART conducted legislative body hearing, Union did not attend and HART imposed all 6 issues, Union refused to send to ratification
49The Unfair Labor Practice Charges ATU v. HARTThe Unfair Labor Practice ChargesUnion filed ULP alleging that HART bargained in bad faith by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed ratification vote, by conducting a legislative body hearing instead, and by implementing the articles resolved at the hearingHART filed ULP alleging that the Union committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to conduct a ratification vote
50Hearing Officer’s Order ATU v. HARTHearing Officer’s OrderHART committed unfair labor practice because it bargained in bad faith by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed ratification vote, by conducting a legislative body hearing instead, and by implementing the articles resolved at the hearingHearing Officer relied on Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1701 v. Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 36 FPER 453 (2010), aff’d per curiam, 88 So.3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) – when the agreement was not ratified, the parties were required to resume bargainingUnion did not commit an unfair labor practice by refusing to conduct a ratification vote
51ATU v. HART PERC Final Order Sarasota was not applicable – in Sarasota, parties were ordered back to bargaining because of confusion over what issues were at impasse, no confusion in this case – here there was no confusion, so there was no need to resume bargainingRelied on City of Hollywood – The purpose of the impasse resolution process is to bring collective bargaining to a conclusionRequiring the parties to return to bargaining would lead to a never ending cycle of negotiationsBecause the Union refused to submit the agreement to ratification, HART could engage in self-help and implement the agreement
52ATU v. HART PERC Final Order HART did not commit an unfair labor practiceThe Union did not commit an unfair labor practice – no allegation of improper motivePending on appeal in the Second DCA
53NAPLES IFACTSIn IAFF v. Naples, the parties began negotiating a successor agreement in June 2011 for a contract expiring in September 2011After 13 bargaining sessions, the parties reached impasse on two issues: pension reform & safety/health articleUnion refused to agree to pension reform, City would not agree to proposed changes to safety/health articleDuring negotiations, City offered wage increase and holiday pay to entice Union to agree
54NAPLES IFACTSCity’s position at impasse was more drastic cuts than proposed during negotiations and did not include a wage increase or holiday payUnion refused all the way up to the Special Magistrate HearingAfter City’s presentation at the Special Magistrate Hearing, the Union suddenly agreed to City’s pension proposal – did not condition its acceptance on wages or holiday payThe City refused to accept the Union’s purported “Agreement”
55The Unfair Labor Practice Charges NAPLES IThe Unfair Labor Practice ChargesUnion filed ULP alleging that City bargained in bad faith by rejecting its own proposalCity filed ULP alleging that the Union bargained in bad faith because its intent in agreeing to the City’s proposal was not to reach an agreement, but instead to derail the impasse resolution process, avoid imposition of pension reform, and perpetuate the status quo
56NAPLES I The Outcome Union bargained in bad faith “In sum, Local 2174’s motivation in accepting the City’s pension proposal was to remove the City’s proposed pension plan from the impasse resolution process. Local 2174’s motivation was not to reach an accord with the City. Rather, Local 2174’s purpose in agreeing with the pension plan was to derail the impasse resolution process and perpetuate the status quo.”Union “knew or should have known that the employees will not ratify the contract based on their self-interest.”“This one instance of bad faith so permeated the entire process that it rendered the impasse resolution process meaningless.”
57NAPLES I The Outcome City did not bargain in bad faith Because the Union acted in bad faith by purportedly accepting the City’s proposal, the parties remained at impasse and the City did not act unlawfully by continuing the impasse resolution process.“The City assumed the risk that it was acting lawfully when it rejected Local 2174’s acceptance of the pension proposal.”Second DCA affirmed per curiam
58INDIAN RIVERFactsParties reached impasse over health insurance - two days before the hearing, the Union agreed to the District’s proposalThe Special Magistrate hearing was cancelled, but the ratification vote failed by a vote of 226 to 3The District resumed the impasse process via ATU v. HART and returned to the Special Magistrate hearing, but the Union refused to participate
59The Unfair Labor Practice INDIAN RIVERThe Unfair Labor PracticeThe parties filed several unfair labor practices against each otherThe District alleged that the Union unlawfully agreed to the District’s insurance proposal as a ruse to thwart the collective bargaining process and intentionally avoid finality in negotiationsUnion alleged that District was required to resume bargaining, not return to point of impasse after the failed ratification vote (Sarasota)
60INDIAN RIVEROutcomeThe Hearing Officer concluded that the Union unlawfully agreed to the District’s insurance proposal to thwart the bargaining process“The CWA agreed to the District’s health insurance proposal knowing with virtual certainty that the unit employees would not ratify the proposal and with the intent of avoiding finality in the bargaining process and extending the status quo indefinitely. This conduct constitutes a failure to bargain in good faith because it makes a mockery of the impasse resolution process and renders it meaningless.”Also reiterated that Parties may return to point of impasse after failed ratification (ATU v. HART)PERC affirmed
61OTHER CASESCity of Hialeah v. International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1102, 38 FPER 111 (2011)After over two years of negotiations and impasse proceedings, a Special Magistrate sided with the City on every issue at impasse, but the Union did not file any rejections. Ratification failed by a vote of 177 to 1 and after ULP proceedings concluding the Union had not bargained in bad faith, the parties were forced to go back to negotiations.
62OTHER CASESInternational Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 2622 v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 39 FPER 283 (2013)Over the course of negotiations, the City declared impasse three times, and each of the first two times, the Union “accepted” the City’s proposal before the special magistrate, and the agreement was overwhelmingly rejected by the bargaining unit.After the third time, both parties filed ULPs.PERC held that the Union did not bargain in bad faith, but took note of its recent statement in ATU v. HART and cautioned that its dismissal of this case should not be read “to countenance a never-ending cycle of negotiations.”It’s decision was based on a lack of evidence showing bad faith.
63OTHER CASESNaples II – Professional Fire Fighters of Naples, IAFF, Local 2174 v. City of Naples, CA (January 13, 2014) (not final)After first ULP hearing, the Special Magistrate issued an order recommending the City’s position on the pension issue because the Union had not made a presentation.Anticipating that the Union would not reject the Special Magistrate’s recommendation, and because the Union’s position remained unclear after additional negotiations, the City rejected the recommendation of its own position to give the Union an opportunity to present its position to the legislative body.The Hearing Officer found that the City’s rejection demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds and was not unlawful.
64Employee Communication The Fine Line of Direct Dealing COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPDATESEmployee Communication The Fine Line of Direct Dealing
65SURVEYING EMPLOYEESA public employer commits an unfair labor practice if it negotiates directly with the bargaining unit employees.“Direct dealing” is prohibited because it can undermine the exclusive status of the employee organization.What about seeking faculty input on the criteria for the award of continuing contracts?
66SURVEYING EMPLOYEESPERC does allow employers to communicate with employees so long as such expression contains no promise of benefit or threat of reprisal or force. See (3), F.S.The communication with employees must be informational only.Ask whether the communication has the effect of enlisting employees to withdraw or abandon their support of the certified bargaining agent.
67SURVEYING EMPLOYEES You decide – Ok to seek faculty input? Compare Duval Teachers United v. School District of Duval County, 36 FPER 62 (2010)Superintendent ed a survey to all District employees, including unit members, asking their opinion on how District should prioritize potential budget cuts.PERC ruled that communication was lawful.Requested information. Did not request union members to bargain with Superintendent instead of Union.
69FINANCIAL URGENCYFirst DCA and Fourth DCA Clash over Standard Applied to Establish Financial UrgencyCity of Miami,118 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)City of Hollywood, -- So. 3d – (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 8, 2014)
70FINANCIAL URGENCYDebate Over the Second Prong of the Chiles Test Authority of gov’t to modify a contract and violate the union’s right to collectively bargainFirst DCA – Local gov’t not required to demonstrate that funds are not available from any other possible sourceFourth DCA – Claimed First DCA modified Chiles test. District court cannot modify Fla. Supreme Court holding.
72BARGAINING TIPS Package Proposals Ratification Letter (Daytona Beach) During NegotiationsThroughout Impasse ProcessRatification Letter (Daytona Beach)Require responseSet deadlineSelf-help if Union refuses to conduct ratificationReturn to point of impasse after failed ratification (Port Orange, HART)
73BARGAINING TIPSDo not accept a bad faith acceptance (Naples, Indian River)Rejecting your own proposal (Naples 2)If Union will not reject an adverse recommendationVery limited circumstances – works better with a package proposalChange position at impasse (Port Orange, Naples)Rescind concessionsOne year contract
74Trends at the Table CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Bonus Payments After the Revision to Section , F.S.Retirement and PensionCost of Health InsuranceEvaluation Programs
75Trends at the Table Release Time for Union Activity CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAININGTrends at the TableLimits on the Ability to GrieveRelease Time for Union ActivityOvertime and Additional PayPromotion for the At-Will
76LEGISLATIVE UPDATES “Student Success Act” – SB 736 Proposed Legislative Budget RequestDOMA and Windsor v. US
77“Student Success Act” LEGISLATIVE UPDATES Senate Bill 736 Comprehensive overhaul of K-12 educationApplicable to DRS Schools
78STUDENT SUCCESS ACT Sweeping reforms Teachers evaluated on a scale of four performance levels (highly effective, effective, needs improvement, unsatisfactory)At least half of evaluation based on student learning growthEliminated tenure, annual contracts only
79Six individuals filed a constitutional challenge to the law Arguments Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526 (Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)Six individuals filed a constitutional challenge to the lawArguments(1) Facially unconstitutional infringement on collective bargaining rights(2) Unlawfully delegates legislative authority to the State Board of Education to define the numerical scores representing the four performance levels
80Oral argument is scheduled for March 25, 2014 Robinson et al v. Department of Education, 2011 CA 2526 (Fla. 2d Cir 2011), on appeal docketed at 1D (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)Result?Leon County Circuit Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments and upheld law as constitutionalPlaintiffs’ appealedAppeal limited to unlawful delegation argumentOral argument is scheduled for March 25, 2014
81Pay Increases for Faculty & Staff LEGISLATIVE UPDATESPay Increases for Faculty & StaffLegislative Appropriation 1950ABase Salary lesser than $40,000 $1,400 RaiseBase Salary greater than $40,000 $1,000 Raise
82PAY INCREASESAdditionally, in June of 2014, $600 bonus available to employees from special Legislative appropriationTop 35% of eligible permanent employeesBaseline requirements – Section (2) Florida StatutesEmployed prior to July 1 of that yearEmployed for 6 consecutives monthsNo sustained disciplinary actions in past year
83DOMA LEGISLATIVE UPDATES United States v. Windsor (June 26, 3013) Issue: Constitutionality of DOMA’s provision denying federal benefits to same-sex partners.State Law Determines Benefits
84DOMA & DOMESTIC PARTNERS Origin of Domestic Partner Benefit PlansWindsor’s ImpactWal-Mart Will Offer Domestic Partner BenefitsFuture Still Unclear
85Thank You!!! Michael Mattimore, Esq. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32303(850)
87What's in it for YOU! - Electronic Onboarding Melissa CurryDirectorRecruitment & Staffing
88Agenda Impact of Electronic Onboarding Avoiding Risk Gaining EfficienciesImproving Brand ImageUniversity of Florida – GatorStartKey DriversValue GainedA Look at the Electronic ProcessSupport of Legislative UpdatesChallenges with Remote EmployeesSupport of Foreign NationalsImpact on the University
91Inefficiencies- Manual Onboarding Applicant accepts job offerInformation is manually enteredNew hire completes paperwork onsite or mails backLocation collects the completed formsManually enter data into payroll and other HR systemHard copy is saved and appropriate copies given to new hireCorporate HR is hopeful that compliance is not an issue…Manager reviews all documentationNew hire packet is assembledPacket is mailed or delivered on first dayIf errorManual Onboarding
92Improved Efficiencies- Electronic Onboarding A new hire packet is electronically created pre-populated with new hire data.New hire completes documentation quicklyon-line and can print “smart forms”Data is automatically checked for completeness and accuracy. Electronically stored and data exported into appropriate HR systems.Applicant accepts job offer. Data is sent to Onboarding Solution.
93Improved Brand ImageReduction in time spent on manual processes allows for more focused attention on employee socialization, which may increase retention.90% of organizations believe employees make decision to stay based on impression of the company in the first year. Aberdeen Research 20112013 Aberdeen Group
94University of Florida – GatorStart CUPA-HR 2012HR Innovation AwardAwarded to innovations that advance and contribute to the overall excellence of the HR Profession.2013 Davis Productivity AwardAwarded to state employees and work units for innovation, creativity, and work product that significantly increases productivity in the delivery of state services and productsUniversity of Florida’s GatorStart Project TeamReceives CUPA-HR’s HR Innovation AwardUniversity of Florida’s GatorStart project team received the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) 2012 HR Innovation Award. This award honors a team’s or an individual’s demonstrated human resource innovation. The innovation can be technological in nature, based in process improvement, a novel partnership that advances the profession, or a new approach to an HR department’s current challenge, but most important, it must advance the human resource profession or contribute to the overall excellence of the profession. Thanks to the generous support of Ellucian, CUPA-HR is pleased to offer a $3,000 contribution to an endowment or scholarship at the University of Florida.Looking for a way to reduce lates hires, improve compliance and leverage technology to create a state of the art onboarding process, University of Florida’s recruitment and staffing team, enterprise systems staff, the training and organizational development team and an outside vendor partnered to create GatorStart. This comprehensive, multimedia, online onboarding process includes a welcome video, an “introduction to UF” video and a “final instructions and what happens next” video, as well as a website with helpful resources. GatrorStart also enables a new hire and his or her hiring manager to complete all the necessary forms and paperwork online, including the I9, W-4, direct deposit, intellectual property agreement, EEO and veteran’s surveys, loyalty oath and more. However, GatorStart is not a one-size-fits-all approach — onboarding is specialized and tailored for each employee based on his or her employee group.GatorStart has served to not only get new employees hired faster, but also to improve their first impressions of the university and provide them with helpful information regarding their first day of employment. “The feedback on GatorStart has been overwhelmingly positive,” says Melissa Curry, director of recruitment and staffing at University of Florida. “The new hires appreciate the ease of use and love the fact that they can complete their paperwork online from anywhere in the world in less than 10 minutes. The biggest win, for me, is being able to improve compliance while making the onboarding process meaningful for new hires and decreasing the workload of the hiring managers.”
95About the University of Florida: Major research university enrolling 50,000 students26,000 employees10,000 new hires annuallyEmployees located in every state, however, 95% of employees are located in Gainesville, FLCentral HR staff of 85Decentralized with approval workflowsPeopleSoft 9.1
96Key Drivers Leading to an Electronic Process Introduction of the electronic I-9 segmented the hiring process so UF continued completing the paper form.Implementation of E-Verify forced reconsideration but still looking for a comprehensive onboarding process.Then we were introduced to Equifax Workforce Solutions electronic onboarding.
102New Screen ShotsI would like to highlight this page because one of the greatest aspects about the Onboarding System is that it is configurable based on employee type. This is a Benefits and Retirement Information page to provide information as well as important deadlines for action. We have about 20 employee types with different combinations of benefits and retirement. Additionally, it allows you to customize you’re the forms for each employee type. For instance, we have additional forms regarding outside activities and intellectual property.
106New Legislation Quickly Supported in an Electronic Process ACA NotificationsAll New Hires within 14 Days of StartUnique Delivery Requirements503 Self-IdentificationGovernment ContractorsPre-Hire & New Hire after March 2014All employees by March 2015Every 5 Years
107Challenges with Remote Employees Growing number of remote employeesGrowing enrollment through online coursesMore telecommutersAccess to computersAddition of Extension Campuses
108Support of Foreign Nationals “SSN Applied for State”Breaks Automated ProcessesElectronic Process Manages the Exceptions
109Positive Impact on the Organization New hires love it! Ease of use and online paperwork completed in 10 to 15 minutes on average.“Smart” Forms eliminate paperwork errors.Workload reduction for hiring managers and HR.Improved I-9 and E-Verify compliance--slowly.Ability to engage employee in our culture and community from the start.Average time saved per hire is 1.5 hours with an estimated salary savings of $360,000 annually.*1.5 hours per $24 per hour, 10,000 hires annually