Now that President Trump’s first 100 days are in the rearview mirror, where nearly all attention focused on big-ticket items like healthcare reform, tax reform, confirming a Supreme Court Justice and Trump administration officials, Capitol Hill will now begin to work, in earnest, on issues that are less interesting, and often don’t make the cut for the evening network newscasts, but are nonetheless, extremely important to industry, commerce and business.
One such critical, but hardly sexy, issue is the idea of an E-Verify mandate.
{mosads}E-Verify is the government system that allows employers to verify that an employee is authorized to work in the United States. It is ably administered by top-notch officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, specifically the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in concert with the Social Security Administration.
In 2017, the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary and U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary will both consider an E-Verify mandate. With GOP majorities in both chambers of Congress, and a sympathetic White House, the chances of passage seem pretty good.
The E-Verify Employer Agent Alliance (E2A2) applauds these efforts and would ask the congressional committees, as they work through the legislative process, to put added thought and focus on the increased risks that a mandate will have on employers responsible for growing the economy.
Employers are quickly embracing the use of electronic systems as it relates to hiring, increasing efficiency and reducing risk.
What’s likely to happen is that suppliers of electronic Form I-9, E-Verify, and onboarding systems will be deluged with employers wanting to utilize their systems to comply with the mandate.
Basic economics would suggest that this will drive up revenues for established suppliers, but also result in an influx of many more new suppliers, especially those servicing smaller employers, who may be marketing noncompliant systems.
An employer who implements a noncompliant system will be at risk of significant fines and other penalties that could cripple or destroy the business.
It’s an educated guess that these new suppliers will be with commodity products that need differentiation to stabilize prices, retain customers, respond to competitive pressures, and foster growth such as suppliers marketing human resources, payroll, applicant tracking, background screening, and onboarding systems, as well as suppliers offering core products that can benefit from or enhance new applications.
Payroll system suppliers will be some of the first to implement E-Verify to add value and retain customers. This is already starting to happen and the early returns on the compliance level of these systems is not good.
Implementing the E-Verify computer-to-computer interface called Web Services is a significant programming project and requires constant updates within six months of an E-Verify enhancement to stay compliant.
Out of necessity, suppliers find it necessary to provide an electronic Form I-9 capability with E-Verify and this is where the initial noncompliance issues will start.
Payroll system suppliers may be experts on payroll matters, but they are not experts on Form I-9 or E-Verify.
Early feedback from experts in the industry indicates that suppliers look at an electronically completed Form I-9 as simply filling out a simple form, rather than a complex process with complex rules and regulations that must be followed to ensure compliance.
If not followed precisely, the employer may be subject to significant penalties that could do great harm to the business.
Today, no government agency with the power to fine employers is responsible for E-Verify enforcement. However, this will surely change with an E-Verify mandate and fines will likely increase significantly.
So, what must Congress consider and adopt in an E-Verify mandate?
- First, best practices are necessary to ensure that electronic systems properly implement both Form I-9 and E-Verify.
- Second, training standards for users processing E-Verify cases must be defined and required.
- Third, suppliers who implement the best practices and training standards need an independent certification.
Incorporating these three principles in legislation to mandate E-Verify will provide the U.S. government, the business community, and the American public, with confidence in the quality and security of systems accessing government databases.
Due to the costs and potential liability associated with providing system certifications, the government has stopped short of offering such services.
As such, independent organizations, like the E-Verify Employer Agent Association (E2A2), have developed to ostensibly provide these services, with guidance and advice from the government, to ensure compliant use of government resources and to reduce or eliminate risk to employers.
As the debate over comprehensive immigration reform begins to boil in 2017, look for E-Verify reform to be an area of cooperation between the two parties. E2A2, an alliance of major suppliers and experts in the areas of Form I-9 and E-Verify, stands ready to be a sounding board and resource to these committees and agencies on ‘real-world’ practices as they move forward on E-Verify reform.
David Fowler spent 30 years working for EWS on E-Verify-related technologies. He is currently the president of E2A2, the E-Verify Employer Agent Alliance, established to provide guidance and recommend reforms for the E-Verify system and its agents. www.e2a2.org
The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.