Page 1






Part XII: The Fluid State of Health Care Reform Peggy Hoyt-Hoch, Employment Law Services Page 1 The Fluid State of Health Care Reform Page 2 Effect of Windsor Decision on Employer Benefit Plans You Asked: What Type of Employee Compliance Training Should I Be Doing? Page 3 The Legal Status of Marijuana in Colorado Page 4 HR’s Role in Successful Merger and Acquisitions Public Employers: Guns in Public Sector Workplaces Page 5 Highlights from the Colorado and Federal Economic Forecast Page 6 Survey News Page 7 Economic Perspective

As this summer began, employers were rapidly moving forward with implementation plans for 2014, based largely on a patchwork of temporary and interim guidance. And the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rolled out an $8 million communications campaign to prepare and educate citizens. Nonetheless, according to an April Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 59 percent of Americans did not know that health care reform is law and is being implemented. On July 2, 2013, the Treasury Department announced two significant delays. First, the employer shared-responsibility requirement of “pay or play” is postponed. This is a major shift for employers with more than 50 fulltime employees and equivalents. Second, the employer-mandated annual reporting of details regarding each employee to the IRS has been pushed back to 2015. HHS also released proposed delays just three days later, for publication in the July 15, 2013, Federal Register. These delayed by one year the ability of employers to challenge or appeal their employees’ applications for a federal subsidy. HHS also postponed the requirement that the IRS reconcile employees’ stated wages for 2014. Instead, the subsidized exchange benefit will be given to any applicant who claims to have income to qualify. (See chart for subsidy income requirements.) This announcement essentially puts all Americans on the honor system. While some delays are welcome news for employers, who will use the time to work out processes and systems, the news is not good economically for the country. In February 2013, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the U.S. would receive $5 billion from employer penalties in 2014. This delay in penalty collection until 2015 coincides with a

time when more individuals will be eligible to receive federally subsidized coverage from an exchange. As PPACA was written, subsidies were not to cover employees who worked at least an average of 30 hours per week and who were offered compliant employer coverage. Now, with the shared responsibility delay, there is nothing to prevent anyone from applying for a subsidized exchange benefit. As such, those workers who will not be offered employer coverage in 2014, but who need benefits, will seek exchange coverage. Conversely, young, healthy employees may choose to pay the annual $95 (or 1 percent of pay, if greater) tax and avoid coverage. These delays shift the financial burden of covering even the worst medical risks from employers to the federal government and the state exchanges. By inadvertently directing even greater numbers of unhealthy populations into subsidized exchange coverage, we may well devastate the ability of some exchanges to fund the costs of this unknown and higher claims population beyond 2014. In the meantime, the many market reforms, which impact employers and insurance companies in the form of plan design requirements, will stay in place. MSEC will communicate further federal guidance as it becomes available.

Incomes that Qualify for Federal Exchange Subsidy Individuals in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Household income threshold (2013 FPL at 300%) $45,960 $62,040 $78,120 $94,200 $110,280 $126,360 $142,440 $158,520

Denver 303.839.5177 Scottsdale 602.955.7558 Colorado Springs 719.667.0677 Fort Collins 970.223.4107 Fax 303.861.4403 Toll Free 800.884.1328

Effect of Windsor Decision on Employer Benefit Plans Peggy Hoyt-Hoch, Employment Law Services On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in U.S. v. Windsor (U.S. 2013). The justices ruled that for purposes of federal laws, “marriage” includes same-sex couples in states that recognize same-sex marriages for state purposes. The decision left undisturbed Section 3 of DOMA, which allows each state to determine whether it will recognize same-sex marriages from other states. What does this mean for employee benefit plans? The implications are broader than they may first appear and vary by state and type of plan. Best practice is to design and operate benefit plans strategically, with prudence and caution. Any immediate response to Windsor is complicated for multi-state employers since 37 states have laws prohibiting marriage between two

people of the same sex. This conflict among the states will likely be resolved over time. For ongoing changes of states’ positions on same-sex marriage, see: human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx. We now consider Windsor’s general impact by state and type of benefit plan:

Colorado Employers with Employees Only in Colorado and Other Single-State Employers Where Same-Sex Marriage is Prohibited In 2006, Colorado residents passed an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting marriage between two people of the same sex. As of May 2013, Colorado recognizes civil unions but same-sex marriage is still prohibited. So, for Continued on next page

What Type of Employee Compliance Training Should I Be Doing? Tina Harkness, Membership Development Far from a frill, employee compliance training is designed to prevent lawsuits, audits, and fines. There are several areas where compliance training for employees is either recommended or required. The most common of these are workplace harassment/discrimination, safety, and ethics.

Workplace Harassment/Discrimination The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that employers may be held liable for workplace harassment if they do not exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior. Training is a key prevention technique. To be most effective, training must involve all managers (to the highest level), supervisors, and rank-and-file employees. This training is not a one-time event, but must be repeated for all new employees, and held periodically for all employees. Training should inform employees what harassment consists of, clarify what conduct is prohibited, and instruct employees about the procedures in place for reporting and addressing infractions. Training should stress that retaliation against anyone making a complaint or participating in an investigation will not be tolerated. Special training should be given to supervisors and managers on the legal standards for liability and the appropriate was to respond to complaints brought to their attention. Discrimination training contains similar elements to harassment training, but also identifies the many protected classes under federal, state, and local law and the different forms discrimination may take. Sometimes this training is alternated with diversity training, which addresses more of the interpersonal aspects of dealing with differences in the workplace.


The Bulletin

Safety Safety training is no longer just “nice-to-have.” New safety regulations and stepped up enforcement make safety training important in many workplaces. The rising cost of workers’ compensation insurance also has companies looking for ways to reduce job-related illnesses and injury claims. And, many Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) standards explicitly require employees to be trained. OSH Act regulations affect the operations of every type of industry. If where there is no specific regulation, the catch-all “general duty clause,” which requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards, likely kicks in. Ethics It only takes one employee to damage the reputation of your organization, sometimes irreparably. An effective compliance and ethics program can reduce your organization’s potential liability. Ethics training should promote and overall awareness and understanding of ethics, and the procedures in place to prevent, detect, and report suspected criminal and other malfeasance. Training should be conducted periodically for all levels of the organization including its governing authority, high-level personnel, employees, and agents. This training attempts to instill a “moral compass” for employees to follow so that they can guide themselves when faced with ethical dilemmas. Be sure to document your compliance training efforts. Track who was trained, what they were trained on, and what future training might be needed.

August 2013

Continued from previous page

Colorado employers, Windsor made no change to current IRS taxation of employee contributions for “same-sex civil union partners.” In other states which prohibit same-sex marriage, those state laws govern.

Single-State Employers in States That Recognize SameSex Marriage and Washington D.C. Employers who operate only in states that currently recognize same-sex marriage, as well as in Washington D. C., may proceed in making necessary changes to their plans to recognize same-sex marriage. Imputed income for samesex spouses under health benefit plans will no longer be required. Employers may also remove restrictions on reimbursements from cafeteria plan spending accounts, Health Reimbursement Accounts, Health Savings Accounts, and Medical Spending Accounts. Employers with Employees in Both Types of States Multi-state employers face more difficult challenges. Some employers already recognize same-sex marriage in their benefit plans. The next step may be to update their plan definitions and documents. For employers with multi-state plans, federal uniform guidance is needed. It makes no sense to treat employees differently by state with respect to imputed income, coverage of same-sex partners’ children, or rules for reimbursement under account balanced benefit plans (i.e., Medical Spending Accounts, Dependent care accounts, HRAs, and HSAs) based simply on the state. Similar complexities arise with regard to the Family and Medical Leave Act and USERRA for the care of a same-sex spouse. Until interpretive guidance is issued, these complications will be difficult to navigate. Thoughtful, good-faith compliance is what we must rely upon. Retirement Plans Windsor also impacts qualified retirement plans and IRAs. We know specifically that 401(k), 403(b), and 401(a) plan provisions will need to be amended. Employers have more time to make these compliance updates. As such, MSEC will address the retirement plan matters in future bulletins. COBRA and HIPAA Windsor also gives same-sex couples rights to COBRA coverage and HIPAA in states that recognize same-sex marriage. To avoid a patchwork of compliance approaches by state, we anticipate the DOL will issue uniform guidance for both laws. Currently, HIPAA prohibits employees from making mid-year changes to pre-tax health plans unless they have a “Life Event Change” (e.g., marriage, birth, spouse’s job change). As of this writing, DOL is considering making Windsor a life event change to allow mid-year enrollments of same sex spouses. Since the deadline to request a rehearing in Windsor extended to July 22, federal agencies may wait until August to publish needed guidance. Expect impacts on most employee benefits including FMLA leave, USERRA, life insurance plans, retirement, disability, vision, EAPs, and cafeteria plan, HRAs and HSAs, and many other laws. We will keep you informed of developments.

The Bulletin

August 2013

The Legal Status of Marijuana in Colorado Curtis Graves, Employment Law Services The central issue for Colorado employers is whether Colorado’s lawful off-duty activities statute, CRS 24-34-402.5, protects employees’ off-duty marijuana use. The El Paso County District Court considered the issue in Drew Hall v. Direct Checks Unlimited, LLC (Colo. 2011). Direct Checks offered Mr. Hall a job, contingent on passing a urinalysis test. Mr. Hall began work, but was terminated when his pre-employment drug screen came back positive for marijuana. Mr. Hall argued that his termination violated Colorado’s lawful off-duty activities statute, claiming that medical marijuana use was effectively “legal.” The court disagreed, holding that medical marijuana use was merely decriminalized, but not legal, and therefore not protected. Months later, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case of Beinor v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). Jason Beinor used medical marijuana with a physician’s recommendation and was discharged after testing positive in a random drug screen. He was disqualified from unemployment benefits and appealed his disqualification. Colorado law disqualifies claimants from benefits when job loss occurs “because of the presence in an individual’s system during working hours of not medically prescribed controlled substances … .” The court reiterated that medical marijuana in Colorado is merely decriminalized and concluded that as a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana could never be prescribed (even though physicians can recommend it under state law). Therefore, Mr. Beinor’s disqualification from benefits was upheld. With the passage of Amendment 64, marijuana transitioned from merely decriminalized for medical use to “legal” under Colorado law. A Colorado Court of Appeals decision announced April 25, 2013, clarifies that even under Amendment 64, marijuana use is not protected by Colorado’s lawful off-duty activities law: “[B]ecause activities conducted in Colorado, including medical marijuana use, are subject to both state and federal law, for an activity to be ‘lawful’ in Colorado, it must be permitted by … both state and federal law … .Thus, because plaintiff ’s state-licensed medical marijuana use was, at the time of his termination, subject to and prohibited by federal law, we conclude that it was not ‘lawful activity’ for the purposes of [Colorado’s lawful off-duty activities statute].” Coats v. DishNetwork, LLC (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). The decision was welcome news for employers, although it is likely we haven’t heard the final word on the topic. Members should feel free to contact Employment Law Services for additional information.


Human Resources

HR’s Role in Successful Merger and Acquisitions Lorie Birk, Arizona Regional Office While there can be many reasons why a specific M&A fails, the most common reason is the human element. It is truly the people, an organization’s human assets, that determine if an M&A succeeds. And yet, there is very little focus on them throughout the process. The focus is instead on the business results to be achieved. HR’s involvement from the beginning can help ensure a successful M&A. In the pre-deal phase, management identifies and selects potential business partners, negotiates the letter of intent, and makes a preliminary offer to a targeted company. Management is assessing how their business objectives can be achieved by an M&A. HR can help management focus on not just the business objectives but on what the culture of the final organization will be by asking questions such as “How do we want our organization to look and feel like to employees?” By involving HR at this stage, target companies that will not achieve that desired business culture can be eliminated. HR can also ensure that the appropriate internal people are involved in the M&A process.

In the due diligence phase, each organization tries to determine if there are any hidden liabilities in the other organization and assesses whether the M&A will achieve their long-term business and financial goals. This is an important phase of the process, but more often than not, its sole focus is on the “paper.” The tendency is to focus only on the agreements, financial reports, compensation plans, benefit plans, etc. It is rare to see a due diligence checklist that includes questions about a company’s culture. HR can make a difference by asking questions about centralized vs. decentralized management, innovation vs. tradition, transparent vs. closed management, rewards vs. recognition, etc. HR can also analyze the information gathered and assess whether the combined organizations will have the appropriate company culture and achieve the business and financial objectives. HR plays a significant role in the integration phase of an M&A. HR needs to be a champion for change and help lead the organization through change. HR can identify positive role models within the organization. As with other aspects of the business, Continued on next page

Guns in Public Sector Workplaces Lorrie Ray, Membership Development Gun control legislation passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2013 has raised questions about what the current status is of concealed weapons in public workplaces. You may recall that in 2003, Colorado law changed to permit those with concealed weapons permits to carry concealed handguns in all areas of the state, with certain limitations. Concealed handguns cannot be carried into a place where firearms are prohibited by federal law, or into any public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school (unless the handgun remains in a vehicle, properly stored). A specific provision in the law prohibits concealed handguns in public buildings, but only if security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building; each person who enters the building is screened for weapons; and, those carrying weapons are required to leave them with security personnel


while in the building. The law makes clear that it does not apply to private property owners, private tenants, private employers, or private business entities; conversely, it does apply to public-sector employers. The law also restricts local governments from adopting or enforcing ordinances or resolutions that conflict with this law. So, can public sector employers, who are not schools or don’t have screening personnel and equipment, prohibit employees from carrying concealed weapons at work? While no specific exception for employees exists in the law, some argue that because employers control the terms and conditions of employment, they can prohibit employees from carrying concealed weapons at work. After all, employers can prohibit employees from drinking alcohol at work, even though drinking alcohol is legal. Home rule municipalities and counties may have an

The Bulletin

August 2013

even stronger argument, even though the law states it is a matter of statewide concern and home rule does not apply. While some public entities hold firm on this argument, it may be in contravention of the statute. Unfortunately, there is no case law yet to answer this question. Without further guidance, what should public employers do? If you are going to take the position that employers can determine what items employees are allowed to bring into the workplace, first speak to the attorney who would defend you in any action. If instead, you are going to read the law without such an interpretation, keep in mind what you can do. You can require employees to inform you that they have concealed weapons. And, you can require employees to maintain concealed weapons in a safe condition, and perhaps in a safe place, considering all the circumstances. A clear handbook policy can help make these expectations clear.

Human Resources Continued from previous page

there needs to be an integration plan for HR including systems (HRIS, email, and phones), organizational design, talent management, employee communication, etc. One of HR’s key roles in this phase is to communicate the combined company’s culture, vision, values, and goals.

impact on the success of the M&A through communication with employees. Employees are generally starved for information at this point. Employee engagement is critical at this phase so that key talent does not walk out, even those that are considered key for the short-term.

In the final implementation and solidification phase, HR plays a key role in executing the integration plans for all areas of the combined organization. Again, HR can have a significant

As it is people that make the M&A a success or a failure, HR can keep a focus on the human element throughout to ensure it is not forgotten.

Highlights from the Colorado and Federal Economic Forecast Cathy King, Human Resource Services On June 20, MSEC was fortunate to host Natalie Mullis, Chief Economist of the Colorado Legislative Council. Her presentation, titled “Building Optimism, The Economic Outlook for Colorado and the Nation,” was part of our Annual Compensation Survey Briefing, which reviewed the changes in compensation data from previous years and the recently published survey, Colorado Benchmark Compensation for 2013. The economic portion of the program addressed many of the important issues facing the Colorado and national economy. An extensive report is available on the website,\lcs. Some excerpts from that report follow.

Colorado Overall, Colorado’s economy is looking promising. It continues to expand, with strong improvement in the state’s labor market and one of the healthiest housing markets in the country. Low housing inventories and favorable federal monetary policies have contributed to this appreciation. Colorado added jobs through the first few months of the year at a faster rate than the nation, and the unemployment rate continued to fall as employment gains outpaced growth in the labor force. Looking ahead to 2014, the unemployment rate is expected to slowly decline as employment growth slightly outpaces growth in the labor force. Wages and consumer spending continue to improve, while construction activity and export growth remain strong.

There is significant variation in economic growth across regions of the state. For example, drought conditions and later freezes hurt the southeastern and western portions of the state’s agricultural industries, but some of these losses have been offset by higher crop prices. The oil industry continues to support economic activity in the northern region of the state. However, federal spending cuts will reduce growth in 2013 in areas of the state with high concentration of federal workers, such as Colorado Springs and areas with national parks. The report also predicts that prices in Colorado will increase 2.2 percent in 2013 and 2.3 percent in 2014. There will be little inflationary pressure as long as the global economy begins to expand more rapidly, and the Federal Reserve is expected to tighten monetary policy to keep inflation in check.

National Economic activity has been growing steadily, which is helping to add jobs and keep the unemployment rate from increasing. Personal income has grown, despite federal tax changes that were effective January 1, 2013. This growth is helping to support household consumption. The nation’s housing prices are increasing steadily which strengthens consumer sentiment. Business income and investment is on the rise, and the global economy is improving. However, Europe is in the midst of a very long process of deleveraging. The private economy is growing at a strong

The Bulletin

August 2013

pace to offset declines in the public sector economy. Improvements in the economy are boosting consumer confidence, which helps to reinforce positive economic trends. For example, households are more confident that they can make large purchases such as cars and homes. Increased demand for homes is helping to lift home prices providing homeowners with more equity. The improved economic conditions will allow the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy without hurting economic growth. However, despite the improvements in the national economy, some areas continue to restrict growth. For example, the unemployment rate is still above historical averages. Also noteworthy, the gross domestic product, which is the broadest measure of total economic activity, grew an annualized 2.4 percent in the first quarter of 2013, compared with the fourth quarter of 2012. Inflation, a measure of the price of goods and services purchased by consumers, remained modest in the first part of 2013. The challenge ahead for management and HR professionals will be to effectively utilize this information as part of the planning process for development and growth of organizational functions. The knowledge is critical to recruiting and retaining employees, building total rewards packages as the labor supply decreases, and determining future workforce and strategic needs.


Survey News

Survey News Believe it or not, it’s almost time to start the 2014 budget planning process! Part of this process includes determining pay increases for employees in the upcoming year. What are other employers budgeting for 2014 pay increases? Participate in the 2014 MSEC Planning Packet questionnaire to report your organization’s projected 2014 pay increases. Your organization should have received an email to participate in the survey in late July. If not, go to survey questionnaires at and select the Planning Packet questionnaire to download. Results of the survey will be available in late September.

2013 Public Employers Compensation The 2013 Public Employers Compensation Survey is now available. This survey collected data from 118 Colorado and Wyoming organizations for 381 benchmark positions. Wage and salary data are displayed by entity type (City, County, Utilities, Parks & Recreation, and Other) as well as an individual data line for all city, county, and parks and recreation district participants. 2013 Utilities Compensation for Public and Private Employers The 2013 Utilities Compensation for Public and Private Employers Survey contains data extracted from the 2013 Public Employers Survey. This survey includes extracted data from 80 organizations for 62 benchmark positions. The compensation data are displayed by an aggregate data line for city, county, public utility, private utility, parks and recreation, and other. Aggregate data lines are displayed when three or more participants reported a job match.

To request copies of the surveys, please contact the MSEC Surveys Department. Copies of these resources are available to authorized personnel of MSEC members. Call 800.884.1328, email, or go online to


2013 Arizona and Wyoming Benchmark Compensation Surveys are Available! MSEC has published the Arizona and Wyoming Benchmark Compensation Surveys. All data are extracted from the Benchmark Compensation Survey for Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming Employers. The Arizona survey includes data from 35 organizations where data are displayed by geographic location (Metropolitan Phoenix, Tucson, Other Arizona, All Arizona, and All Colorado) for each job classification. The Wyoming survey includes data from 34 organizations, and displays data geographically as well (Casper, Cheyenne, Other Wyoming, All Wyoming, and All Colorado).

General Information: Includes data for average percentage increases in pay and pay ranges for 2012 and projections for 2013 and 2014. Also included are hiring rates for inexperienced, entry-level personnel and for temporary personnel. The average ratio of human resource employees to organization employment size is displayed along with the type of human resource service model utilized by organizations. Summary of Surveyed Positions: The Denver/Boulder, Colorado extract of all surveyed positions in the 2013 MSEC Benchmark Compensation Survey are included in these reports. These data can be used to calculate average salaries in other Arizona and Wyoming cities using the Cost-of-Living and Salary Comparison data from Economic Research Institute.

2013 Information Technology Survey: Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming The 2013 Information Technology Survey is now available. This survey collected data from 313 organizations on 83 benchmark positions. Data in this survey are reported by Information Technology department size and regional geographic location. The 2013 survey incorporates Denver/Boulder, Northern Colorado, Southern Colorado, Colorado Western Slope, Colorado Resort areas, Wyoming, and Arizona. Displayed in the report are individual data lines for each location as well as an All Front Range, All Colorado, and Total Responses data line. This survey gathered base wages effective March 1, 2013.

Included in the Survey: Annual Incentive – Participants were asked to provide annual incentives for the past fiscal/calendar year. Data reported are average incentives paid and number of employees receiving an incentive. Target Percent Incentive –Participants were asked to provide targeted percentage figures for additional compensation, not earned income for the current year. Exemption Status – Displays percentage of organizations reporting their matched position as exempt or non-exempt. The General Information section of the report contains data for average pay increases in pay for 2012 and projections for 2013. Also displayed are miscellaneous compensation practices including 2012 separation rate, average length of time to fill IT positions, the amount paid for successful referrals, and the ratio of IT employees to users.

The Bulletin

August 2013



Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

4/13 EN 6.7% / 7.9%

4/13 DN 6.8% / 7.9%

WEEKLY HOURS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

4/13 N 41.8 / 38.2

HOURLY EARNINGS (MFG.) Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago

4/13 N 27.70 / 27.76

Figures reported for Denver, Colorado and U.S. are from the Current Population Survey [Federal Method]





4/13 EN 6.6% / 6.8%

4/13 DN 7.8% / 7.8%

4/13 DN 4.9% /5.6%

5/13 A 7.6% / 8.2%

4/13 N 38.5 / 36.4

4/13 N 41.4 / 41.1

4/13 N 41.6 / 40.9

4/13 N 35.6 / 41.8

5/13 AP 41.8 / 41.6

4/13 N 24.85 / 25.91

4/13 N 18.91 / 18.57

4/13 N 18.64 / 18.11

4/13 N 22.50 / 22.54

5/13 AP 19.25 / 19.03

(CPI) Consumer Price Index DENVER, CO



1982-84 = 100

DEC. 2001 = 100

1982-84 = 100

Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jul-Dec 2012 N 216.8 / 212.0 +2.3%

Jul-Dec 2012 N 123.9 / 122.4 +1.2%

5/13 A 228.0 / 225.2 +1.3%

CPI-U* All Urban Consumers Latest Date Latest Figure / Year Ago % Change

Jul-Dec 2012 N 226.2 / 221.5 +2.1%

Jul-Dec 2012 N 124.3 / 122.2 +1.7%

5/13 A 231.8 / 228.7 +1.4%

CPI-W* Revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners & Clerical Workers

(ECI) Employment Cost Index

Private Industry Workers Manufacturing Service-providing Industries** Mountain Region*** State/Local Government Workers



12 Months Ended

12 Months Ended

1/13 N

1/13 N

1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.7% 1.0%

1.7% 1.9% 1.6% 0.9% 1.9%

NOTE: Denver-Aurora MSA includes 10 counties: Denver, Arapahoe, Adams, Jefferson, Douglas, Broomfield, Elbert, Park, Clear Creek, and Gilpin. * CPI data for Wyoming is not available. ** Includes the following industries: wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing; utilities; information; finance and insurance; real estate, rental and leasing; professional; scientific and technical services; management of companies and enterprises; administrative support; waste management and remediation services; education services; health care and social assistance; arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services, except public administration.

DEFINITIONS/SOURCES (1) P = N = A = D = E = R = C =

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor Preliminary Data Not Seasonally Adjusted Seasonally Adjusted Reflects revised population controls and model reestimation Reflects inputs, reestimations, and new statewide controls Revised Corrected

For more information: *** Includes the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

The Bulletin

August 2013


1799 Pennsylvania Street P.O. Box 539 Denver, Colorado 80201-0539 800.884.1328 303.839.5177

Our experts provide the services, products, and connections that solve your Employment Law, HR, Training, and Survey concerns . . .

With One Call!



Member Buzz… Pre-Employment Screening Service We recently enhanced our Preemployment Screening Service. MSEC members are now able to access the system, place their own searches, and have direct access to the reports. Of course, we are available to provide customer service if you need it or we can take care of the whole process. It’s your choice! Here’s what members are saying about the service.



“I love your new system; it’s easy to use.” Violet Heath Human Resources Manager City of Colorado Springs

“Thank you! I was able to access the site easily and view all completed reports.” Tim Dunbar Director of Finance & Administration Colorado Health Institute

“Thanks. I love this new online system!!!!!” Susie Allen, Human Resources Director Gilpin County

Denver 303.839.5177 | Scottsdale 602.955.7558 | Colorado Springs 719.667.0677 | Fort Collins 970.223.4107 | Fax 303.861.4403 | Toll Free 800.884.1328

August 2013 MSEC Bulletin  

August 2013 MSEC Bulletin

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you