Connect with us

Workers

Deloitte Is Giving Unemployed Gig Workers In Some States Something Extra to Worry About

Published

on

Imagine being an out-of-work independent contractor living in Ohio during this pandemic, anxious and unsure of when you’re actually going to get some financial assistance from the state because Ohio’s unemployment systems are being blown up with regular unemployment claims. Finally you get word that you can now file for unemployment benefits through the new Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which was specifically created under the CARES Act for gig workers or partially unemployed individuals who are not eligible for the usual unemployment insurance.

Let’s say you filed your PUA claim and it was accepted. At long last, there will soon be money deposited in your bank account every couple of weeks while you look for work. Then you get this email from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services:

Dear PUA Applicant:

Deloitte Consulting is currently under contract with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) to assist the state of Ohio in administering the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program. Deloitte discovered on May 15, 2020 that your name, Social Security number, and street address pertaining to your application for and receipt of unemployment compensation benefits inadvertently had the capability to be viewed by other unemployment claimants. Thereafter, Deloitte immediately began an investigation and upon discovering the exposure, Deloitte immediately took steps to stop further access to and exposure of your personal information.

At this time, there is no evidence or indication to believe that your personal information was improperly used; therefore, our actions, as well as the actions you may want to consider, are preventative.

As a precaution, you may want to monitor your credit by obtaining a copy of your credit report from one of the three national credit bureaus. Federal law entitles every individual to one free credit report per year from each of the three main bureaus.

Awesome. Just when things were starting to go your way, now you have to worry about some Uber driver who was just laid off possibly knowing who you are, where you live, and the nine most precious digits you own. First, your job was taken from you. Now potentially your identity.

Anyway, Deloitte said it would offer free credit monitoring services to all PUA applicants in Ohio for a year.

But Ohioans aren’t alone. Data breaches also occurred last week in the PUA systems in Illinois and Colorado, exposing the personal information of thousands of claimants. And what’s the common link? Deloitte, of course.

In Illinois, nearly 32,500 PUA applicants had their personal information available for all to see for a short time, according to IllinoisPolicy.org. A small business owner from downstate Illinois, who was on the unemployment site to receive assistance herself, noticed people’s exposed data on May 15 and contacted her local state representative, who then alerted the governor’s office.

In April, Deloitte Consulting was awarded a $22 million no-bid contract (emphasis added because why not bid out a project with this much importance?) by the state of Illinois to build the new PUA claims system and to manage a call center, according to IllinoisPolicy.org.

During his daily COVID-19 press briefing on May 18, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker threw Deloitte under the bus, essentially saying they built the system, they are responsible for the data breach. In a statement to CBS 2 News in Chicago, Deloitte tried to douse the fire:

We are deeply committed to protecting the personal information of our clients and the people they serve. A unique circumstance enabled one Pandemic Unemployment Assistance claimant in Illinois to intermittently access a restricted page on the state’s website. Within an hour of learning of this issue, we identified the cause and stopped the unauthorized access to prevent additional occurrences. The only person to inadvertently access the restricted page is the one who reported it. Out of an abundance of caution, we are providing credit monitoring to those potentially impacted by this issue.

In Colorado, claimants’ personal information on that state’s PUA system was exposed for nearly TWO WEEKS, according to the Colorado Sun:

Deloitte, which provides similar technology to other states, mistakenly gave users privileged functions beyond the role of a regular claimant. It allowed users to search and potentially see another claimant’s “correspondence,” which could include a name and Social Security number.

The search function was enabled from May 2 to May 15, at which time Deloitte discovered the problem and blocked it from occurring again. The company told the state that according to its logs, during the two-week period only six people saw the searchable screens.

All six people have been contacted. There is no evidence that those users searched other accounts, according to the vendor’s logs.

The 72,000 people in Colorado’s PUA system were offered 12 months of free credit monitoring by Deloitte.

Fortunately, as of right now, all three of these data breaches haven’t turned out to be a horrible nightmare for the unemployed workers whose names, addresses, and SSNs were accidentally exposed, but it still has to be pretty nerve-wracking for them.

Between these three PUA system data breaches and the pile of junk it built to handle unemployment claims in the state of Florida, Deloitte Consulting’s reputation must be taking a bit of a hit, right? But don’t worry, Uncle D. will again be ranked among the top consulting firms to work for in the U.S. because of the culture, people, work/life balance, or whatever.

Related articles:

Please Don’t Call Deloitte If Your House Is On Fire
Florida Governor Is Not Impressed with Deloitte’s Handiwork
Deloitte Gets Big 4 Bragging Rights In 2020 Vault Consulting 50

Have something to add to this story? Give us a shout by email, Twitter, or text/call the tipline at 202-505-8885. As always, all tips are anonymous.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Workers

The extra $600 in weekly unemployment benefits expired — but gig workers and self-employed Americans still qualify for benefits

Published

on

By

For the first time during the pandemic, weekly jobless claims dipped below 1 million, but there are likely many more Americans who qualify for unemployment benefits who didn’t apply.

When the $2 trillion CARES Act passed in March, self-employed, independent contractors, gig workers and other nontraditional workers became eligible for unemployment benefits. Even though the federally-funded $600 a week in enhanced unemployment benefits, which was also part of the CARES Act, expired on July 31, these types of workers can still collect state-level unemployment benefits through the end of the year.


‘There is definitely a chance that the loss of the $600 is changing claimant behavior’


— Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project

This nuance may have been lost in translation when the $600 benefit expired, said Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy organization focused on workers’ rights.

“There is definitely a chance that the loss of the $600 is changing claimant behavior,” she said, meaning that unemployed workers may have wrongly assumed that they would no longer be eligible for unemployment benefits after July 31. A total of 10 million Americans have already been approved for unemployment benefits who otherwise would have been ineligible if not for the CARES Act, Evermore said.

Unemployment benefits are based on how much money a worker earned while they were employed. For traditional salaried workers, that amount gets automatically reported to state workforce agencies. But self-employed and gig workers often lack the ability to provide an exact net earnings amount, Evermore said.

“But if they can prove that they worked and got income or were offered a job and that job offer was rescinded due to COVID-19,” she said, they can collect what amounts to half of the average weekly unemployment benefit in their state.


In all 50 states and Washington D.C., the minimum amount is over $100 a week

In many cases that will enable them to collect more in unemployment benefits than they would if they had a traditional job where their earnings were reported automatically, Evermore told MarketWatch.

At a minimum, gig workers, independent contractors and other self-employed workers can collect the equivalent of the average weekly benefit in their state. In all 50 states and Washington D.C., the minimum amount is over $100 a week, according to the Department of Labor. That’s especially important because it means these types of workers will be eligible for an additional $300 a week under President Donald Trump’s executive order. (Anyone who gets at least $100 in unemployment benefits from their state would qualify for the extra $300.)

However, it could be some time before these workers actually get those benefits. State governors have said that state workforce agencies are not properly equipped to quickly implement the changes Trump’s executive order calls for.

Evermore said she hopes that Congress will consider extending the period of time gig and self-employed workers can collect unemployment benefits, but she is “worried we will reach a deadlock on this in December like we are seeing now with the $600.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Workers

DoorDash: Injunction In CA Over Gig Worker Status

Published

on

By

DoorDash, the San Francisco-based prepared food delivery service, could be the latest gig company to face an injunction to treat its workers as employees, not independent contractors.

The Financial Times reported San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin has filed for a preliminary injunction against the country’s largest food delivery service that would require the company to reclassify its workers as employees.

“We are seeking an immediate end to DoorDash’s illegal behavior of failing to provide delivery workers with basic workplace protections,” Boudin said in a statement. “All three branches of California’s government have already made clear that these workers are employees under California law and entitled to these important safeguards.”

If Boudin’s request is approved by the court, the ruling would apply to DoorDash workers in California. A reclassification of workers would mean gig workers with healthcare benefits, sick pay, paid leave and other benefits not currently available to them.

“In the midst of one of the deepest economic recessions in our nation’s history, today’s action by the district attorney threatens billions of dollars in earnings for California Dashers and revenue for restaurants that rely upon sales from delivery to keep their businesses open,” DoorDash told FT in a statement.

The action against DoorDash comes days after a California judge granted a similar injunction against Uber and Lyft at the request of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

On Monday (Aug. 10), California Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman said the ride-share companies have until August 20 to reclassify their drivers. The companies are expected to appeal. The injunction requires Uber and Lyft to stop classifying their drivers as independent contractors pending further action by the court.

In response, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi told MSNBC this week that it may have to close temporarily.

“If the court doesn’t reconsider, then in California, it’s hard to believe we’ll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly,” she told the network.

Like Uber and Lyft, DoorDash said most of its workers prefer to be contractors, arguing that flexibility over working hours and location is impossible under an employee model.

In November, voters will be asked to approve Proposition 22, a ballot question that would repeal the gig law.

FT reported DoorDash has contributed $30 million to a joint fund supporting the ballot initiative. Uber and Lyft have each put in the same amount, along with contributions from other gig economy groups. The total backing for the “Yes on 22” campaign now stands at more than $110 million, the newspaper reported.

The opposition has only raised $1.6 million, according to the filings with the state of California.

——————————

New PYMNTS Report: The CFO’s Guide To Digitizing B2B Payments – August 2020 

The CFO’s Guide To Digitizing B2B Payments, a PYMNTS and Comdata collaboration, examines how companies are updating their AP approaches to protect their cash flows, support their vendors and enable their financial departments to operate remotely.



Source link

Continue Reading

Workers

Do Lawsuits in California and Massachusetts Threaten the Gig Economy as We Know It? | Ballard Spahr LLP

Published

on

By

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the important role that gig workers play in our economy. At the same time, it also has highlighted the working conditions of gig workers, spurring several states to take action on their behalf.

Attorneys General in California and Massachusetts as well as the California Labor Commissioner have filed suit against rideshare companies Uber and Lyft, alleging the companies misclassify drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Just yesterday (August 10, 2020), a judge in California issued a preliminary injunction in one of those cases, finding that Uber and Lyft must convert their drivers from independent contractors to employees. If the claims ultimately are successful, and gig economy businesses such as Uber and Lyft are forced to permanently make their workers employees, it could create a significant shift in the gig economy business model as we know it.

The first of these suits came May 5, 2020, when the California Attorney General sued Uber and Lyft, alleging that both companies are misclassifying their drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. In doing so, Uber and Lyft deprive their drivers of minimum wage, overtime, rest breaks, paid sick leave, expense reimbursements, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, and paid family leave that would be available to an employee. The California Attorney General seeks an injunction and restitution for unpaid wages, meal and rest break premiums, unpaid sick leave, taxes, and other penalties.

On August 10, 2020, Judge Ethan Schulman of the San Francisco Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction in that case, ordering Uber and Lyft to re-classify their drivers as employees. In issuing the injunction, Judge Schulman found that the Attorney General would likely be able to prove that the drivers are not independent contractors under state labor law because they do not perform work that is “outside the usual course of their business.” Further, in balancing the harms of issuing an injunction, Judge Schulman found that by misclassifying workers as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft are depriving drivers of a “panoply of basics rights and protections,” which has a “ripple effect[] on law-abiding competing businesses, and on the public generally.” By contrast, the harm to the ride-sharing companies is merely the cost it will take to bring their businesses into compliance with state law. The judge stayed the order for 10 days to allow Uber and Lyft to seek an immediate appeal.

The California Labor Commissioner filed separate lawsuits against Uber and Lyft on August 5, 2020. The suits allege, among other things, that Uber and Lyft committed wage theft by misclassifying their drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees. The Labor Commissioner alleges that both companies failed to pay wages in a timely fashion and did not provide accurate itemized wage deduction statements. The Labor Commissioner seeks similar relief to that sought by the Attorney General.

These lawsuits come on the heels of California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5), which went into effect on January 1, 2020. Under AB-5, workers in California are considered employees unless they are free from control from the hiring entity, perform work outside of the hiring entity’s usual business, and engage in an independently established trade or occupation. Uber and Lyft continue to fight that legislation and are backing a ballot initiative in California that would exempt them from the requirements of AB-5.

Uber and Lyft’s challenges are not limited to California. On July 14, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General also sued Uber and Lyft, claiming systematic denial of benefits, like sick leave, paid time off, and unemployment insurance. The suit seeks a ruling that the drivers are employees under state law, as well as an injunction preventing Uber and Lyft from denying the drivers employment protections.

A wide array of companies that rely on gig workers—from food service to child care—could be impacted by court decisions ordering companies to comply with state wage and benefit provisions. This could lead to a fundamental shift of business models in those states, or could drive certain businesses out of those states if they cannot make business profitable using an employee model with the added wage, tax, and benefit costs.

Recent decisions in New York and Pennsylvania have found that Uber and Lyft drivers are employees under state unemployment laws as well. Those decisions are Islam v. Cuomo and Lowman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review. Similarly, on October 14, 2015, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry issued an Advisory Opinion, stating that Uber drivers are employees for purposes of Oregon state law.

Moreover, in November 2019, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development determined that Uber drivers were misclassified as independent contractors and assessed Uber $650 million in past due unemployment and disability insurance taxes. While these decisions and actions in and of themselves do not necessarily have the same impact as the Massachusetts and California enforcement actions, they still could contribute pressure on the gig economy business model.

These cases also serve as an important reminder to companies to review their classification practices. The law dictates whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Simply labeling someone an independent contractor is not sufficient if legally inaccurate. The consequences for misclassification can be steep, including liability for unpaid wages, taxes and benefits, as well as civil and criminal penalties.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Gigger.news.