 |
|
|
SPSE Job Developer/Program Marketability Subgroup Feedback
This survey collects feedback on SPSE policy questions from the Job Developer/Program Marketability Subgroup.
|
|
|
- EMPLOYER OF RECORD: DCF is considering whether to allow certain, non-W-2 agency 3rd parties to serve as the SPSE employer of record. For example, an SPSE worker could be the legal employee of a staffing agency, but actually work at a manufacturing company.
What advantages and disadvantages would this policy have from a program marketability standpoint?
As far as worksite employers are concerned, would this SPSE arrangement provide a significantly different product than CSJ?
Do you foresee any problems this arrangement could cause?
*
|
- EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS: DCF must establish requirements employers must meet to qualify for SPSE.
The trial jobs employer requirements are listed on the agreement: http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/forms/pdf/dcf_f_dwsp10759.pdf
Please review the Trial Jobs requirements. Do any of them cause problems when trying to close the deal with employers?
Also, think about the prior question, which considers whether to allow 3rd parties to serve as employer of record. If we do allow this, can you think of any additional employer requirements that would help protect everybody's interests in three party deals?
*
|
- MINIMUM COMPENSATION: SPSE law requires SPSE workers to take home at least as much as CSJ participants. To comply with this law, employers must contribute at least $60 per month to the costs of employing the SPSE worker ($60 would make up for the taxes taken from the workers' checks). However, we will most likely require a greater employer contribution.
What amount of employer contribution ensures sufficient employer buy-in without scaring employers away?
What are your general thoughts about how the employer contribution would impact SPSE marketability?
|
- Did any other thoughts arise that didn't fit into one of the questions. Please share.
|