Outline for Employer/Employer Agent

of 9 NJDOL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MODERNIZATION PROJECT

PURPOSE OF STUDY The UI Modernization Project is tasked with defining the ideal future state for UI benefit delivery in New Jersey. To ensure that we place customers’ needs at the core of this redesign, we are undertaking a short series of individual and group interviews of customers - both claimants and employers.

This report represents the feedback from employers and employer agents --- their biggest frustrations and their priorities for improving the services we provide. This report, and the parallel ones capturing claimant and claimant advocate feedback, will inform the future state workshops.

STRUCTURE Chapter A of this report addresses employer experiences when dealing with individual claims, subdivided for experiences with UI personnel, information and forms, and processes and procedures. Chapter B addresses experiences when dealing with employer accounts. Chapter C summarizes the overall experience, including employer wants and potential Quick Wins to improve employer experience in the short term.

PROCESS USED TO COLLECT INFORMATION Two employer/employer agent focus groups were held. Nine participants were in the first focus group with three via phone (representing one company), and two participants were in the second focus group.

The representatives were mainly from the HR function and dealt primarily with claimant issues and related administration. The three employer agents had broader perspectives.

The following summarizes the combined input from all eleven participants.

A. EXPERIENCES WHEN DEALING WITH INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS

(A-1) EXPERIENCES WITH UI – PERSONNEL Employers found pervasive inconsistencies in the quality of UI personnel. Employers’ key to obtaining good service was to find a knowledgeable and experienced UI person, and to always deal with that person. A common pattern was to build a good working relationship with local managers, and failing that, to identify the regional managers from whom to get help.

Employers as a whole felt that UI personnel were difficult to impossible to contact by phone unless they had obtained the direct number for a manager, and also found the lack of voice mail for UI staff frustrating. An employer who dealt with many different UI people noted that often when she did reach a UI employee by phone, the UI employee “put her off” due to backlog. Page 2 of 9

One employer said she dealt with numerous DOL offices, had not established a relationship with any, and found the general courtesy level low.

There was no uniform pattern of quality for urban versus rural offices. For example, comments included: -Newark office excellent and efficient in dealing with us, extracted information in 10 minutes -New Brunswick good -Trenton very inconsistent -Dover poor … may be trainees … keep us on the phone forever … don’t know questions to ask -Toms River excellent -Neptune excellent

An insightful experience from one employer: Employer had a layoff of 800 people. The claims were parceled out to a number of offices to share the workload. In parallel, DOR had not entered the wage record information correctly. As a consequence, each office had to enter the claimant’s version of wage information separately and did so in different ways. As such, the employer reported that “none of the 800 collected properly”. Employer’s key complaint in addition to having to make corrections for each of the 800 after filling out 800 blue forms, was the Trenton One Stop telling claimants they don’t handle that company, which sent claimants back to her, making her feel like she was the UI office.

Employer reported that an error was made on the tape originally sent, that neither they nor UI caught the error, and such was the beginning of the snowball of errors. Employer has since found “Barbara” in UI, and she and Barbara are working through resolving most of her difficulties. The employer was still frustrated that she was still acting as a UI advisor to most of her former employees while this was being resolved.

This mass layoff emphasized the problem of WAGE Record data not appearing in LOOPS Wage, causing employer to be sent 800 BC2WRs requesting "missing quarter wages" for 1/2002 wages.

Illustration of difficulty in reaching UI claims examiner: Employer was notified by mail to phone a claims examiner by a certain date/time which was about 24 hours away. Employer repeatedly tried to contact examiner, but could not get through. The deadline passed without the employer being able to reach the examiner. Employer asked why examiners don’t have voice mail.

Example of non-uniform responses from UI agents: An employer supplying temporary workers often has new positions available. She will send a job offer letter by restricted mail (meaning only the addressee can sign for) to the claimant, and the claimant will not accept the letter. Employer phones the relevant office for claimant, informs of situation and says that he/she will call claimant and if claimant doesn’t respond to employer within two weeks, he/she will cut off claimants payments. In another office, the agent will say the non-picked-up letter is not a bona-fide job offer, and claimant’s UI payments will continue.

One employer commented that they train their people almost daily, and it was clear that UI people don’t receive the same. Page 3 of 9 The employer agent noted that when employers voluntarily try to reach UI, it means something that employer expected to happen (like receipt of determination) hasn’t happened, or information received is incorrect, or claimant is coming to employer out of frustration or confusion with UI.

Employer Recommendations for Personnel Improvement Included: -Better employee training -Improved ease in contacting UI employee -Ability to leave voice or e-mail messages, especially when asked to contact UI -Ability for UI to handle mass layoffs without “distributing” caseload

(A-2) EXPERIENCES WITH UI – PRINTED or ELECTRONIC MATTER Overall, employers felt forms and documents do not dovetail well, often seem redundant and cumbersome, were not as clear as they could be, and seem not be read by UI.

The CPA employer agent felt employee definitions were unclear, and information on regulations and procedures were not readily available, and what he did have was overwhelming and intimidating. He recommended on-line information and on-line confirmation of “processing status” for employers and their agents.

An example of perceived redundant and unread forms: Employers are confused by needing to respond to the BC3E to confirm weeks and wages or add in extra; then complete the BC2WR asking for extra weeks and wages; and then receive phone calls for the same information - suggesting that the forms sent back to the agency have not been read.

Experiences regarding unclear and ineffective forms: One employer felt the blue temporary lay-off form was basically OK, but found the “fallout” from it problematic. Her experience was that temporary mass lay-off claimants receive the same notification form as all other claimants – which directs them to phone in to certify. However, temporary mass lay-off claimants do not need to phone in the first two weeks. The employer HR manager tells these people not to phone, but they invariable do call; after all, the State letter tells them to. The consequence is that multiple (redundant) new claims are generated - that then lead to claimants receiving threats of prosecution for fraud. Employer would like online filing and no blue forms.

Employer agent suggested removing the double negative in the tax rate notice or to advise employers to phone for explanation, since many employers don’t know they have a choice.

Employer found that BC2WR form worked properly only for employees of less than a couple of months. Employer questioned need to fill out this form by hand, since tape is sent.

Employer with 800 person layoff would have appreciated suppression of BC3E for those for whom they had filed claims, as receiving 800 BC3Es at once resulted in a few claimants not part of the mass layoff group slipping by and getting paid when they may not have been eligible

Employer agent stated that many employers simply ignore all UI correspondence because UI is low priority in business terms and they really don’t have time to figure it all out.

Employers acknowledged that their multi-locations could be confusing to UI for where to send information. One large employer said they tried to publicize one corporate address for everything. Page 4 of 9

Employers stressed need for learning determinations quickly and for being able to verify if a particular SSN is approved for collecting or is working elsewhere.

The CPA employer agent stated that the Employment and Training Grants programs work well, but are not well publicized.

Employer Recommendations for Information and Forms Improvement Included: -Making regulatory and procedural information conveniently available online -Rationalizing, simplifying, and clarifying forms and correspondence -Tailoring forms for situation; “one size does not fit all” -Offering online option to replace all paper forms (online and electronic) -Providing means to verify status/determinations in a timely manner

(A-3) EXPERIENCES WITH UI – PROCESS AND PROCEDURES Employer experiences with forms, information and processes blur, but the major process difficulties included: -Untimely feedback of determination status, appeals scheduling, and other items -Untimely reading and processing of information sent to UI -Lack of confirmation of receipt of information requested by UI -Lack of confirmation that information submitted was complete and compliant -Lack of ability to check status -No easy fixes for errors made by them or by UI, and snowballing of errors.

Employer agent observed that the Department’s priority and a key metric is to get UI checks out quickly to claimants, whether or not claimants are entitled legally to payments. This priority has minimized cross checks for veracity and fraud, and has resulted in unfairness to both employers and claimants. Employers suffer higher rates due to the incorrect claims and the time cost of appeals, and claimants who incorrectly received payments need to repay what they have already spent.

Employers were concerned about (1) claimants not being screened better when they file for UI benefits to weed out those being disingenuous about the reason for separation or their status to file, and (2) no mechanism being in place for employers to be notified quickly about a filing and being able to contest incorrect information before the first check is paid. Problems resulting from incorrect employer wage records are difficult for an employer to resolve because at least three state agencies handle the data and do not understand each other's role in the process or each other's contact details. No single point of contact or resolution exists for employers.

Experiences regarding process difficulties: Claimants and employer did not receive determination for 16 weeks after employer filed information. Angry claimants complained to employer, blaming employer for withholding their benefits.

Employer has not heard back on requested appeals hearing for as long as 6 months and had no way to check status Page 5 of 9

Employer has not received call or fax back for as long as two to three months

Employer experienced not receiving determination notifications for 8 to 12 weeks, even after 8 to 12 requests were made. Meanwhile claimants were collecting. Employer then appealed the collection, generally won, and claimants were instructed to return the money. Typically claimants had already spent the money to live, felt cheated, and some made harmful threats to employer. Employer annoyed that the information she submitted (BC3-E) on claimant, if read by UI in a timely manner, would have meant earlier detection and adjudication.

Employer receiving notification of appeals hearing date only a few days in advance, resulting in scheduling difficulties and a strong preference for phone hearings.

Employer with 400 people who submitted tape learned that none of the 400 employees received credit for the 3Q of 2002, and needs to work through correcting all 400.

Employer agent felt that UI’s phone system is a ‘natural’ barrier for employers to access UI staff

One employer stated that her company won’t attend any appeals because it’s just not worth their time. Employer agent confirmed that many employers make a cost/benefit analysis for attending appeal, with about $5,000 being the break-even point. Another employer said he didn’t attend appeals hearings until he saw his rates increase, then attended every hearing and almost always won.

Another employer stated she attends all appeals, wins most, finds most examiners are fair, but some are prejudiced against employers and/or skin color. Employers find it frustrating to travel to a hearing when claimant is a no-show.

CPA employer agent stated that UI laws and regulations have many illogical anomalies, and cited the example of a person who received $50/week to empty wastebaskets being classified as an “employee”.

Temporary help agency manager could not find a way she could get job offer messages through to former employees who had moved out of state or to the UI people in the resident state.

The CPA employer agent commented that his small to medium sized clients found the entire UI area too complex and time-consuming to deal with, and simply wanted to be told what to do. The employer agent stated that employers will pay for what they don’t know unless they hire a consultant. He cited example of woman buying a business and not realizing she could have opted for new company tax-rate status rather than accepting higher tax-rate status from history with former owner.

Employer Recommendations for Process Improvement Included: - If claimant states a voluntarily quit, automatically institute non-charging and suppress BC3E. -Get employer into loop to verify claim before first check is cut -Put spotlight on fraud as a deterrent -Simplify process to improve speed and content of feedback to employers, eliminate redundancy, and ensure that information submitted is read -Acknowledge receipt of returned forms (BC-3E, BC-28) -Enable employers to check status and completeness, especially on-line -Give employers “go-to” contacts within UI -Have User Help Hotline for employers, especially high-volume users Page 6 of 9 -Combine various audits into one -Remove employer penalty of $25/person/non-compliance for about twelve months as an incentive to encourage employers to work candidly with UI in helping UI improve processes Page 7 of 9

B. EXPERIENCES WHEN DEALING WITH EMPLOYER ACCOUNTS AND NON-CLAIM SPECIFIC ISSUES

Most of the focus group participants were not with the part of their company that deals with employer accounts. Nevertheless, the following information was forthcoming:

-Quarterly report experience was generally excellent, but it was difficult to address incorrect wage inputs, and employers were reluctant to do so due to the advertised potential $25 fine/person for each wrong submission.

-Submitting base weeks and wages was not perceived as a problem

-Lack of self-service, no easy access to information, no option to file everything online, and no ability to confirm information online was frustrating

-Difficulty in reaching UI people when necessary, and non-uniformity of UI employee training was frustrating Page 8 of 9 C. EXPERIENCES WITH UI – OVERALL

Employers found pervasive inconsistencies in the ability, knowledge and courtesy of UI personnel. They also felt UI personnel were difficult to contact by phone unless they had obtained the direct number for a manager, and found the lack of voice mail for UI managers frustrating.

Overall, employers found forms and documents did not dovetail well, were often redundant, cumbersome, and unclear, and were often unread by UI.

Major process difficulties experienced by employers included untimely feedback, reading and processing of information sent, lack of receipt and completeness confirmations, inability to check status, and no easy fixes for errors.

Employers and Employer Agents Want: 1. Streamlining of forms and process, with option of online and electronic filing for everything, ability to check status (especially if SSN is collecting or employed), and ability to challenge determination before first check is sent. 2. Timely feed back and response from UI 3. Feedback on tape submission status as the tape goes through its “stages” 4. UI to read and process what employers submit in a timely manner 5. Ability to obtain basic UI information and confirmations online 6. “Go-to” contact(s) or Hot Lines and means of leaving messages 7. Increased emphasis on eliminating fraud or misrepresentation 8. Quicker employer refunds 9. UI to hire more examiners 10. Clarity of forms, information, process, and modes of contact for their ex-employees, along with timely responses and service to them so that ex-employees don’t bring complaints to employers and want UI services from employers. 11. A single phone number (or only a couple) claimants can call for everything. This means each line needs excellent clarity and prompts. 12. Increased use of NJ Employer Council and the Chambers of Commerce to disseminate UI information 13. Removal of $25/person/non-compliance penalty for about a year to encourage employers to work proactively with UI in fixing and modernizing the system 14. Being kept current on the NJ UI Modernization Project

Potential Quick Wins: 15. Eliminate double negative in tax rate notice 16. Increase publicity for use of language line 17. Automatically institute non-charging and suppress BC-3E if claimant states a voluntarily quit. 18. For mass layoffs, do not send claimants instructions to certify for the first 2-weeks Page 9 of 9 19. Improve publicity for Employment and Training Grants programs 20. Send employers/agents status updates of NJ UI Modernization Project